Understanding International Diplomacy

Bjola, Corneliu; Kornprobst, Markus

doi:10.4324/9780203774960

Cited by 50 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Knowledge production in that field, he writes, derives from 'day-today personal dealings with the leading political strata in the country to which the diplomat is accredited' (Bull, 1977: 175). Today, it is widely acknowledged that diplomacy involves actors other than states and this complicates the practice (e.g., Cooper, Hocking and Maley, 2008;Sharp, 2009;Murray et al, 2011, Bjola andKornprobst, 2013). However, the study of diplomacy remains focused on inter-state and inter-governmental relations, even when these are mediated by international organizations.…”

Section: Locating Diplomatic Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Symbolic power in diplomatic practice: Matters of style in Brussels

Kuus¹

2015

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the workings of symbolic power in diplomatic practice. At the level of empirical observation, it focuses on the intangible and incalculable ‘feel for the game’ that distinguishes a well-informed and relaxed insider from an ill-informed and ill-at-ease outsider in European Union (EU) diplomatic circles in Brussels. By highlighting the play of social resources, such as reputation, presence, poise, and composure in these circles, I examine EU diplomacy from an angle – symbolic power – that is often overlooked in the existing work on that field. Conceptually, the analysis focuses on the role of informal social resources rather than formal institutional structures in diplomatic practice. It also outlines the potential synergies between the study of diplomacy in international relations (IR) on the one hand and geography, anthropology, and sociology on the other. The paper thereby advances the analytical toolbox of diplomatic studies and practice theory. Such conceptual sharpening is needed, especially now that diplomacy is becoming more transnational and less linked to the foreign ministries of states.

show abstract

Section: Locating Diplomatic Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Symbolic power in diplomatic practice: Matters of style in Brussels

Kuus¹

2015

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a key problematique in contemporary governance studies, the proliferation of private actors and the diversification of their means of action is also relevant for this study. Private initiative is a dominant causal explanation for how governance comes into being, as well as for the structuring of particular configurations of governance (Cutler et al 1999;Hall and Biersteker 2002;Bjola and Kornprobst 2010), generally perceived as more flexible and innovation-fostering. Originally, Cutler et al (1999), Haufler (2001), and Hall and Biersteker (2002) investigated how governance functions formerly performed by states became privatized and outsourced to private actors.…”

Section: State and Private Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Internet Governance

Radu

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is at stake for how the Internet continues to evolve is the preservation of its integrity as a single network. In practice, its governance is neither centralized nor unitary; it is piecemeal and fragmented, with authoritative decision-making coming from different sources simultaneously: governments, businesses, international organizations, technical and academic experts, and civil society. Historically, the conditions for their interaction were rarely defined beyond basic technical coordination, due at first to the academic freedom granted to the researchers developing the network and, later on, to the sheer impossibility of controlling mushrooming Internet initiatives. Today, the search for global norms and rules for the Internet continues, be it for cybersecurity or artificial intelligence, amid processes fostering the supremacy of national approaches or the vitality of a pluralist environment with various stakeholders represented. This book provides an incisive analysis of the emergence and evolution of global Internet governance, unpacking the complexity of more than 300 governance arrangements, influential debates, and political negotiations over four decades. Highly accessible, this book breaks new ground through a wide empirical exploration and a new conceptual approach to governance enactment in global issue domains. A tripartite framework is employed for revealing power dynamics, relying on: (a) an extensive database of mechanisms of governance for the Internet at the global and regional level; (b) an in-depth analysis of the evolution of actors and priorities over time; and (c) a key set of dominant practices observed in the Internet governance communities. It explains continuity and change in Internet-related negotiations, opening up new directions for thinking and acting in this field.

show abstract

“…At least three developments distinguish political networks in world society. First, there has been a shift from ‘old’ state-centric diplomacy to ‘new’ diplomacy composed of multiple actors and networks that coalesce in various issue-areas (Cooper and Hocking, 2000; Bjola and Kornprobst, 2013, 44–60; Adler-Nissen, 2015) as the drafting of treaties increasingly involves consultation with multiple stakeholders and non-state actors (Backstrand et al ., 2017). Second, there has been an increasing tendency of non-state actors to use international law as a strategic ‘resource’ (cf.…”

Section: Six Network Of Power In World Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Globalization and the rise of integrated world society: deterritorialization, structural power, and the endogenization of international society

Babones

Åberg

2019

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a widespread feeling that globalization represents a major system change that has or should have brought world society to the forefront of international relations theory. Nonetheless, world society remains an amorphous and undertheorized concept, and its potential role in shaping the structure of the international society of states has scarcely been raised. We build on Buzan's (2018, 2) master concept of ‘integrated’ world society (‘a label to describe the merger of world and interstate society’) to locate the integration of world society in the globalization of social networks. Following the advice of Buzan (2001) and Williams (2014), we use conceptual frameworks from international political economy to systematically explore the structure of integrated world society along six dimensions derived from Mann (1986) and Strange (1988): military/security, political, economic/production, credit, knowledge, and ideological. Our empirical survey suggests that, on each of these dimensions, power has centralized as it has globalized, generating steep global hierarchies in world society that are similar to those that characterize national societies. The centrality of the United States in the networks of world society makes it in effect the ‘central state’ of a new kind of international society that is endogenized within integrated world society.

show abstract

Understanding International Diplomacy

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Symbolic power in diplomatic practice: Matters of style in Brussels

Symbolic power in diplomatic practice: Matters of style in Brussels

Negotiating Internet Governance

Globalization and the rise of integrated world society: deterritorialization, structural power, and the endogenization of international society

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About