Diplomacy and Changing Polities

  • Christer Jönsson
  • Martin Hall
Part of the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations book series (SID)


Diplomacy we have argued in Chapter 2, emerges whenever and wherever polities with distinct identities see the need to establish regular exchange relations while keeping their separate identities. Moreover, diplomacy contributes to the recognition and reproduction of similar polities while delegitimizing other types of political formations, as discussed in the previous chapter. By the same token, diplomacy mediates, and reflects a particular combination of, universalism and particularism.


European Union Member State Foreign Ministry External Relation Eleventh Century 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Wight, “The States-System of Hellas,” in C. Jönsson and R. Langhorne (eds), Diplomacy, Volume II (London: Sage, 2004), p. 56.Google Scholar
  2. C.P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Flower, “Alexander the Great and Panhellenism,” in A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham (eds), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 97–8.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    C. Roebuck, “The Settlements of Philip II with the Greek States in 338 B.C.,” Classical Philology, 43 (1948) 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. J.A.O. Larsen, “Representative Government in the Panhellenic Leagues,” Classical Philology, 20 (1925) 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 9.
    A.J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980), pp. xxiii-xxiv.Google Scholar
  7. J.A.O. Larsen, “Representative Government in the Panhellenic Leagues, II,” Classical Philology, 21 (1926) 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 16.
    F.E. Adcock and J. Mosley, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London: Thames and Hudson, 1975), p. 89.Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    A.B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 188.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    N.G.L. Hammond, The Genius of Alexander the Great (London: Duckworth, 1997), pp. 48–9.Google Scholar
  11. 22.
    V. Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1938), p. 63;Google Scholar
  12. 27.
    C.A. Robinson, Jr., “The Extraordinary Ideas of Alexander the Great,” American Historical Review, 62 (1957) 327.Google Scholar
  13. 28.
    H.M. de Mauriac, “Alexander the Great and the Politics of ‘Homonia’,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 10 (1949) 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 39.
    B. Tierney, Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475, 6th edn (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 1999), p. 214.Google Scholar
  15. 40.
    U.-R. Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), p. 79.Google Scholar
  16. 43.
    F. Ganshof, The Middle Ages: A History of International Relations (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p. 131.Google Scholar
  17. 50.
    A.B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History: From the Ancient Near East to the Opening of the Modern Age, 2nd edn (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994), p. 256.Google Scholar
  18. 51.
    P. Sharp, “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review, 1 (1999) 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 59.
    J.R. Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 22.Google Scholar
  20. 60.
    D. Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 118.Google Scholar
  21. 64.
    F. Laursen, “On Studying European Integration: Integration Theory and Political Economy,” in F. Laursen (ed.), The Political Economy of European Integration (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1995), pp. 7–9.Google Scholar
  22. 65.
    Cf. C. Hill and W. Wallace, “Diplomatic Trends in the European Community” International Affairs, 55 (1979) 49.Google Scholar
  23. 66.
    R. Cooper, The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-first Century (London: Atlantic Books, 2003), p. 142.Google Scholar
  24. 68.
    Cf. B. Laffan, R. O’Donnell and M. Smith, Europe’s Experimental Union: Rethinking Integration (London: Routledge, 2000).Google Scholar
  25. 69.
    J.G. March and J.P. Olsen, “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders,” International Organization, 52 (1998) 967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 71.
    A. Stone Sweet and W. Sandholtz, “Integration, Supranational Governance, and the Institutionalization of the European Polity,” in W. Sandholtz and A. Stone Sweet (eds), European Integration and Supranational Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 8–11.Google Scholar
  27. 72.
    L. Hooghe and G. Marks, Multi-Level Governance and European Integration (Oxford: Rowman&Littlefield, 2001), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  28. 73.
    G. Wiseman, “ ‘Polylateralism’ and New Modes of Global Dialogue,” Discussion Paper, No. 59 (Leicester: Leicester Diplomatic Studies Programme, 1999), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  29. 77.
    P. Ifestos, European Political Cooperation: Towards a Framework of Supranational Diplomacy? (Aldershot: Avebury, 1987), p. 585.Google Scholar
  30. 78.
    S. Duke, “A Foreign Minister for the EU: But Where’s the Ministry?,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 89 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2003), p. 12n23;Google Scholar
  31. S. Duke, “Preparing for European Diplomacy?,” Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (2002) 858;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. M. Bruter, “Diplomacy without a State: The External Delegations of the European Commission,” Journal of European Public Policy, 6 (1999) 183–4;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 84.
    See R. Bengtsson, “The Council Presidency and External Representation,” in O. Elgstrom (ed.), European Union Council Presidencies: A Comparative Perspective (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 62–5.Google Scholar
  34. 90.
    Cf. C. Hill, “A Foreign Minister without a Foreign Ministry—or with Too Many?,” CFSP Forum, 1 (2003) 2;Google Scholar
  35. 96.
    D. Spence, “The Evolving Role of Foreign Ministries in the Conduct of European Union Affairs,” in B. Hocking and D. Spence (eds), Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002), p. 34.Google Scholar
  36. 98.
    J.S. Nye, Jr. and R.O. Keohane, “Transnational Relations and World Politics: A Conclusion,” in R.O. Keohane and J.S. Nye, Jr. (eds), Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 383.Google Scholar
  37. 102.
    S. Talbott, “Globalization and Diplomacy: A Practitioner’s Perspective,” Foreign Policy, 108 (1997) 78.Google Scholar
  38. 104.
    J. Bátora, “Does the European Union Transform the Institution of Diplomacy?,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 87 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2003), p. 11.Google Scholar
  39. 108.
    S. Keukeleire, “The European Union as a Diplomatic Actor,” Discussion Paper, No. 71 (Leicester: Leicester Diplomatic Studies Programme, 2000), p. 6.Google Scholar
  40. A. Cooper and B. Hocking, “Governments, Non-governmental Organisations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy,” Global Society, 14 (2000) 361–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christer Jönsson
    • 1
  • Martin Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Lund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations