Diplomatic Interactions and Negotiations

Abstract

This article examines the role of state actors, organization agencies, and individual agents in diplomatic interactions and negotiations. States as diplomatic actors, organizations as diplomatic agencies, and individuals as diplomatic agents enter into complex and interdependent relationships. Proposing a three‐level analysis of interstate interactions and diplomatic negotiations, I argue that no diplomatic negotiation happens without interactions between parties at the state, organizational, and individual levels. The agency–structure paradigm provides a conceptual framework for understanding behavioral and structural properties of international interactions and their influence on diplomatic negotiations. Diplomatic negotiation employs specific forms of interaction, using a distinct language, protocol norms, symbols, ceremonies, and rituals. The state's “self” (as a social conception of its identity, values, and interests) affects the process of diplomatic negotiation. By managing, organizing, and improving international interactions at the actor, agency, and agent levels, negotiating parties can advance the process and effectiveness of diplomatic negotiation.

Narrative practice in international politics and diplomacy: the case of the Crimean crisis

“…Diplomatic negotiation is about finding a common ground between divergent interests, values and identities (Faizullaev 2014). In the Crimean case, there were several attempts to negotiate a way out of the crisis.…”

Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping

“…Although these actors are commonly expected to execute decisions made by national ministries of defence and foreign affairs, in reality, those ministries are thinly staffed for substantive issues like PoC. That often provides New York-based diplomats, including military advisers, with considerable room for manoeuvre, especially in filtering information and deciding the content and form of reports to their capitals (Faizullaev, 2014; Karlsrud, 2013; Schia, 2017). They are pivotal agents of norm implementation, thereby reintroducing meaningful instances of agency into implementing norms from the international level onwards (see Bucher, 2014).…”