Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 29 Апреля 2014 в 13:46, реферат
Traditional diplomacy is practised as the art and craft of communicating and interchanging among states acting through their representatives (diplomats) in the national interest (be it political, economic, scientific, social or other) by peaceful means. These means do not exclude the use of (political or economic) pressure (short of war) which is defined as coercive diplomacy. Raymond Aron already distinguished between “L’art de convaincre” and “L’art de contraindre”.1
The difference between diplomacy and foreign policy is related to that of instruments (of execution) and of formulation and contents of policy. Diplo- macy as a method deals with the articulation of foreign policy. It is about the means, not the ends, of foreign policy. Diplomacy thus serves as an instrument of implementing foreign policy. International relations on the other hand is the social science of analysing foreign policy. International relations deal with relations between states, while transnational relations concern transboundary interactions in which at least one societal actor is involved.
An extreme form of micro diplomacy by sub-state entities is the pursuance of the political aim of total separation from the federation and its recognition as an independent state called proto-diplomacy.6
The growing interdependence and interaction between international and domestic policy is linked together by the internal need for legitimacy and consensual support for these policies at all levels of governance. Putnam7 talks of a “two level game” in diplomacy which could also be called “intermestic affairs” (mixed international and domestic). This new terminological synthesis points to the reality of growing intertwining of international affairs and domestic policies in globalized relations. It reflects the fact, that globalization has changed the relationship between domestic and world politics and chal- lenged the way in which politics is conducted internationally.
The classical normative and empirical distinctions between the categories “domestic” and “international” and their order of primacy cannot be upheld.8 Both the domestic and the international settings are in continual transforma- tion. Today, they rather constitute a seamless web with high levels of coopera- tive interdependence9 due to the collectivization of objectives. The increasing numbers of international interactions endanger both the coordination and control of foreign affairs by a government and the distinction between foreign and domestic affairs.
The common thread to these practices on the borderline of international and domestic politics is the acceptance that diplomacy as a set of behavioural rules has the capacity to provide a coordinating bridge between the different layers of state and international interaction. Diplomacy is entering new and specialized issue areas (for example environmental diplomacy, human rights diplomacy, trade and financial diplomacy), and domestic policy is becoming more internationalized. Diplomacy is being performed by a growing number of governmental entities as well as new participants such as transnational corporations. These new participants through their own activities then create new diplomatic needs and additional branches of diplomacy such as corpo- rate diplomacy. This may also necessitate consultations between and common training among various participants. Links among participants could be strengthened if national negotiating teams engaged in full consul- tations before and after international negotiations. The combinations to be brought together may include professional organizations, local and national governments, commercial interests and expert advisers. This becomes the new task of diplomacy. Thus, diplomacy, its procedures and dynamics prove to be the appropriate general instrument at all levels of globalized societies