What Is Diplomacy: Law, Practice, and International Order

1. Introduction: What is diplomacy

The question what is diplomacy remains one of the most frequently invoked yet conceptually misunderstood issues in international law and international relations. In professional practice, diplomacy is often reduced to etiquette, negotiation style, or foreign policy rhetoric. In doctrinal and legal terms, such simplifications are inaccurate. Diplomacy is a structured institution of international society, grounded in law, historical practice, and formal authority, through which political entities manage relations, pursue interests, and prevent or contain conflict. A precise understanding of what diplomacy is requires moving beyond metaphor and examining its legal foundations, institutional functions, and normative limits.

At its core, diplomacy is the organized and continuous conduct of international relations through officially recognized representatives acting on behalf of a subject of international law. This definition highlights three essential elements. First, diplomacy presupposes institutionalization. Diplomatic interaction is not improvised communication between individuals; it is carried out through stable offices, missions, procedures, and professional roles that persist beyond specific disputes or personalities. Second, diplomacy depends on recognition and authority. Diplomatic acts derive their legal and political effect from the recognized status of the sending entity and the accredited capacity of its agents. Third, diplomacy is purposive. It aims to manage coexistence, pursue negotiated outcomes, and reduce the costs of an international system that lacks a central governing authority.

Historically, diplomacy predates modern international law, yet the two have evolved in close interaction. Early diplomatic practices developed as customary mechanisms for communication among sovereigns, particularly in Europe after the consolidation of the territorial state. Over time, repeated practice generated expectations of conduct, such as safe passage for envoys and respect for their persons. These expectations gradually hardened into customary rules and, in the twentieth century, into comprehensive treaty regimes. Modern diplomatic law did not invent diplomacy; it stabilized and universalized practices that states already regarded as indispensable for survival in an anarchic international order.

In legal doctrine, diplomacy occupies a distinctive position. It is neither merely a policy instrument nor an autonomous legal regime detached from political reality. Instead, diplomacy operates at the intersection of law and power. Legal rules enable diplomacy by protecting diplomatic agents, ensuring channels of communication, and defining permissible conduct. At the same time, diplomatic practice shapes the interpretation and application of those rules through precedent, reciprocity, and institutional habit. This dynamic explains why diplomacy remains resilient even during armed conflict, sanctions regimes, and severe political breakdowns. States often sever relations or expel diplomats, yet they rarely abandon diplomacy altogether, relying instead on protecting powers, special envoys, or multilateral forums.

Understanding diplomacy also requires distinguishing it from related concepts. Diplomacy is not synonymous with foreign policy. Foreign policy concerns the formulation of external objectives within a domestic political system, while diplomacy concerns their external articulation and execution through interaction with other actors. Diplomacy is also broader than negotiation. Negotiation is one technique within diplomacy, alongside representation, information-gathering, mediation, signaling, and crisis management. These functions persist even when no agreement is immediately attainable, which explains why diplomacy continues in situations of prolonged hostility.

Finally, diplomacy must be understood as a legally constrained activity. Diplomatic privileges and immunities, non-interference obligations, and duties of respect for the receiving state’s laws are not ceremonial features; they are structural components that allow diplomacy to function without coercion or constant friction. The balance between functional protection and legal responsibility defines the legitimacy of diplomatic practice. When diplomacy is abused, the response is not the abandonment of legal rules but their enforcement through expulsion, waiver of immunity, or reciprocal measures.

A rigorous answer to what is diplomacy, therefore, lies in recognizing it as a legal-institutional practice essential to international order. It is the primary mechanism through which states and other recognized actors communicate, bargain, and coexist under conditions of legal equality and political inequality. Without diplomacy, international law would lack a practical means of operation, and international politics would be governed solely by force and unilateral action.

2. Diplomacy as an institution of international relations

Diplomacy is best understood as a durable institution within international relations rather than a loose set of techniques or interpersonal skills. Its defining feature is the organization of cross-border political communication through recognized roles, procedures, and norms that persist over time. This institutional character explains why diplomacy continues to function during crises, ideological conflict, and even armed confrontation. States may change policies or tactics, yet they rarely abandon the diplomatic framework that allows interaction to occur in an orderly and predictable manner.

As an institution, diplomacy reduces uncertainty in an international system lacking a central authority. By standardizing who may speak, how communication takes place, and which acts carry legal or political consequences, diplomacy transforms potentially chaotic interaction into a regulated process. This stabilizing function is not incidental. It is the reason diplomatic practices have been preserved, refined, and legally codified across centuries and political systems (Berridge, 2015; Sharp, 2009).

2.1 Diplomacy as institutionalized communication

At its core, diplomacy is institutionalized communication among recognized representatives of recognized entities. The emphasis on institutionalization is decisive. Communication becomes diplomatic only when it is conducted through established channels, by authorized agents, and according to shared rules and expectations. Casual contact, unofficial dialogue, or private initiatives may influence international affairs, but they do not constitute diplomacy unless they are embedded within, or formally connected to, the institutional framework.

This institutionalized communication performs several interrelated functions. Dialogue enables the continuous exchange of positions and intentions, reducing misperception and signaling red lines. Bargaining allows actors to adjust preferences and reach compromises without resorting to coercion. Signaling conveys resolve, restraint, or willingness to escalate, often through carefully calibrated statements or actions. Diplomacy also encompasses formal acts associated with war and peace, including declarations, ultimatums, ceasefire arrangements, and armistice negotiations. These acts demonstrate that even the transition between peace and armed conflict is mediated through recognized diplomatic forms rather than unstructured violence (Watson, 1982).

Rules and socialized practices structure this communication. Diplomatic language, protocol, reporting conventions, and the use of notes verbales or joint communiqués are not stylistic choices; they are mechanisms that convey meaning while limiting ambiguity. Over time, practitioners internalize these practices through training and professional socialization, creating a shared diplomatic culture that transcends individual states. This culture does not eliminate conflict, but it frames how conflict is expressed and managed.

2.2 Recognition, representation, and authority

Diplomacy presupposes recognition. Only entities that possess recognized international status can engage fully in diplomatic relations, and only individuals endowed with recognized authority can perform diplomatic acts with binding effect. Recognition thus functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that defines participation in the diplomatic system.

In classical doctrine, states are the primary subjects of diplomacy, reflecting their status as principal subjects of international law. Recognition of statehood enables the establishment of diplomatic relations and the exchange of accredited representatives. Without recognition, communication lacks legal standing and cannot generate formal obligations. Contemporary practice has expanded participation to certain international organizations and other entities, yet this expansion remains tightly controlled through express mandates and constituent instruments (Crawford, 2006).

Authority operates at the individual level. Diplomatic agents act not in a personal capacity but as representatives whose authority is derived from the sending entity. Credentials, letters of credence, and accreditation procedures formalize this authority and notify the receiving state that the individual may speak and act on behalf of the sender. These procedures are not ceremonial. They identify who can bind the state through statements, negotiations, or undertakings and who cannot. When authority is absent or defective, diplomatic acts lose their legal significance, even if they carry political weight.

Recognition and authority together delineate the boundaries of legitimate diplomatic interaction. They determine who may enter the diplomatic arena, whose statements matter, and which commitments can be relied upon. This framework protects the receiving state from unauthorized interference while enabling effective communication between governments. It also explains why disputes over recognition, such as those involving contested governments or territorial claims, often generate diplomatic paralysis rather than open dialogue.

2.3 Diplomacy distinguished from adjacent concepts

Analytical clarity requires distinguishing diplomacy from related but distinct concepts that are often conflated with it. Failure to maintain these distinctions leads to conceptual dilution, where any cross-border activity is labelled diplomatic without regard to institutional criteria.

Foreign policy refers to the formulation of external objectives within a domestic political system. Internal decision-making processes, political priorities, and strategic assessments shape it. Diplomacy, by contrast, concerns the external implementation and interaction through which those objectives are communicated, negotiated, and adjusted in relation to other actors. A state may radically alter its foreign policy while retaining the same diplomatic apparatus and methods.

Negotiation is a technique rather than an institution. It involves structured bargaining aimed at reaching an agreement, but it represents only one function within diplomacy. Diplomatic activity continues outside negotiation settings through representation, routine communication, information-gathering, protection of nationals, and crisis management. Reducing diplomacy to negotiation obscures these ongoing functions and underestimates its role in periods when agreement is neither possible nor imminent (Zartman, 2008).

International relations, finally, is the academic field that studies global political interaction in all its forms. Diplomacy is one institutional mechanism within that broader field, alongside war, trade, law, and international organizations. Treating diplomacy as synonymous with international relations erases its specific legal and professional contours.

Definitional discipline is therefore essential. Diplomacy is not everything that crosses borders. It is a specific, rule-governed institution that channels communication among authorized representatives and gives structure to international political life. Maintaining this distinction allows diplomacy to be analysed with doctrinal precision rather than rhetorical breadth.

3. The legal framework of diplomacy

Diplomacy operates within a dense legal framework that gives structure, predictability, and legitimacy to international interaction. This framework does not merely regulate conduct after disputes arise; it enables diplomacy to function on a daily basis by defining who may act, how they are protected, and which limits constrain their activities. Without law, diplomatic practice would depend entirely on power asymmetries and ad hoc tolerance, undermining its stabilizing role in international relations.

3.1 Sources of diplomatic law

The law governing diplomacy is derived from three interrelated sources: treaties, customary international law, and institutional practice. Together, these sources form a coherent normative system that stabilizes expectations and reduces transaction costs in interstate engagement.

Treaties constitute the most visible and authoritative source. The codification of diplomatic law in multilateral conventions during the twentieth century transformed long-standing customs into universally applicable rules. Codification reduced uncertainty by clarifying obligations and entitlements, particularly in situations of political tension. States no longer needed to renegotiate basic protections for envoys each time relations were established or strained.

Customary international law continues to play a foundational role. Many core principles of diplomatic law, including the inviolability of envoys and the obligation of safe conduct, existed well before formal codification and retain legal force independent of treaty membership. Custom also fills interpretative gaps where treaty provisions are general or silent, allowing diplomatic law to adapt gradually to new contexts without constant renegotiation (Denza, 2016).

Institutional practice, especially within international organizations and foreign ministries, complements treaty and custom. Repeated practice in multilateral diplomacy, crisis management, and protection arrangements contributes to the practical meaning of legal norms. This interaction between formal law and practice explains the resilience of diplomatic law despite changing geopolitical conditions.

3.2 The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 represents the cornerstone of modern diplomatic law. It provides a comprehensive legal regime for permanent diplomatic missions and codifies principles that were previously dispersed across custom and bilateral agreements. Its central logic is functional rather than personal. Privileges and immunities are granted to ensure the effective performance of diplomatic missions, not to elevate diplomats above the law or shield misconduct for its own sake.

The Convention reflects a balance between the interests of the sending state, the receiving state, and the international community. It protects diplomatic communication and representation while preserving mechanisms for responding to abuse through non-coercive means compatible with sovereign equality and reciprocity.

3.2.1 Establishment and functions of a diplomatic mission

Diplomatic relations are based on mutual consent. No state is obliged to establish or maintain diplomatic relations with another, and the creation of a mission requires the agreement of both parties. This consent-based structure reinforces sovereignty while enabling stable interaction once relations are established.

Article 3 of the Vienna Convention provides a legally grounded list of the core functions of a diplomatic mission. These include representing the sending state, protecting its interests and those of its nationals, negotiating with the receiving state, ascertaining conditions and developments through lawful means, and promoting friendly relations. This provision transforms abstract notions of diplomacy into a concrete set of legally recognized activities. It also establishes boundaries, making clear that diplomatic functions must be pursued through lawful and accepted methods rather than covert or coercive interference.

3.2.2 Accreditation, agrément, and persona non grata

Accreditation procedures operationalize diplomatic authority. The requirement of agrément allows the receiving state to approve or reject the proposed head of mission before appointment. This ex ante control serves as a preventive mechanism, enabling the receiving state to protect its political and security interests without escalating disputes.

Persona non grata, regulated by Article 9 of the Convention, provides the receiving state with a sharp but lawful remedy when diplomatic conduct becomes unacceptable. A diplomat may be declared persona non grata without explanation, obliging the sending state to recall or terminate the individual’s functions. This mechanism is particularly significant when immunities prevent arrest or prosecution. It preserves the principle of non-interference while allowing states to respond decisively to misconduct. Reciprocity ensures that the use of this measure remains restrained, as excessive reliance risks symmetrical retaliation.

3.2.3 Inviolability and immunities

Inviolability and immunities form the protective core of diplomatic law, each grounded in functional necessity rather than personal privilege.

Premises inviolability treats the mission as a protected space. Authorities of the receiving state may not enter without consent, and the state bears a special duty to protect the premises against intrusion or damage. This rule safeguards confidential communication and symbolic representation.

Personal inviolability prohibits arrest or detention of diplomatic agents. It ensures that diplomats can perform their functions without intimidation or coercion, even during periods of acute political tension.

Jurisdictional immunity shields diplomats from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state and, with defined limits, from civil and administrative jurisdiction. This immunity is not absolute in purpose. When abuse occurs, the system relies on waiver of immunity by the sending state, recall, or expulsion rather than routine prosecution. These mechanisms reflect a deliberate choice to prioritize uninterrupted diplomatic communication over domestic enforcement.

3.2.4 Duties: non-interference and respect for local law

Diplomatic privileges are matched by duties that define the legal limits of diplomatic activity. The duty of non-interference prohibits involvement in the internal affairs of the receiving state. This obligation is central to maintaining sovereign equality and political independence.

Diplomats are also required to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. Lawful information-gathering is permitted, but covert intelligence activities or direct political mobilization fall outside accepted diplomatic conduct. These limits are frequently tested in disputes involving public statements, engagement with opposition groups, and support for civil society initiatives. The Convention does not prohibit contact with local actors, but it constrains the manner and purpose of such engagement to prevent coercive or manipulative interference.

3.3 The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Consular law is often mistakenly treated as a subordinate form of diplomacy. In reality, it constitutes a distinct legal regime with different objectives and methods. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 focuses on assisting nationals abroad and facilitating administrative, economic, and protective functions.

Article 5 enumerates consular functions, including issuing travel documents, assisting detained nationals, safeguarding the interests of minors and incapacitated persons, and promoting commercial relations. Consular immunities are narrower than diplomatic immunities, reflecting the more practical and localized nature of consular work. This calibrated approach demonstrates that diplomatic law adapts protection to function rather than status.

3.4 Protection of diplomatic agents and missions

The protection of diplomatic agents and missions relies on a shared legal architecture that extends beyond the Vienna Convention. Receiving states have a positive duty to protect diplomatic premises and personnel against attack or interference. This duty applies regardless of internal unrest or political instability.

Complementing these obligations is the criminal-law suppression regime established by the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons. This instrument requires states to criminalize attacks on diplomats and to prosecute or extradite offenders. It reflects the collective interest of the international community in preserving diplomatic communication as a public good.

3.4.1 The Tehran Hostages case as a doctrinal stress test

The case concerning United States diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran provides a clear illustration of the legal consequences of failing to protect diplomatic missions. The International Court of Justice held that Iran was responsible not only for the initial seizure by private actors but also for subsequent failures to restore protection and respect inviolability. The judgment confirmed that inviolability constitutes a strict obligation, even during revolutionary upheaval. It also exposed the limits of diplomacy when domestic political collapse collides with binding treaty commitments, underscoring the role of law as a standard against which conduct is judged, even when compliance is politically difficult.

3.5 Diplomatic protection of nationals

Diplomatic protection must be distinguished from consular assistance. Diplomatic protection refers to the right of a state to espouse a claim on behalf of its national injured by an internationally wrongful act. It is an inter-state process grounded in international responsibility, not an individual entitlement.

The International Law Commission’s Draft Articles clarify the conditions governing this practice. Nationality of claims establishes the legal link between the individual and the protecting state. Exhaustion of local remedies requires the injured person to seek redress domestically before international action is taken. Discretion remains with the state, which decides whether and how to pursue the claim.

Contemporary practice places additional constraints on diplomatic protection. Human rights regimes allow individuals direct access to international bodies, while investment arbitration provides alternative avenues for dispute settlement. These developments have not eliminated diplomatic protection, but they have narrowed its scope and reshaped its function within a pluralistic legal order.

Together, these legal regimes demonstrate that diplomacy is sustained by law at every stage. Legal norms enable representation, protect communication, and define limits, allowing diplomacy to function as a stable institution even in periods of profound political strain.

4. Core diplomatic functions in practice

Diplomacy is not an abstract legal construct but a set of concrete functions performed daily by accredited agents operating within defined legal limits. These functions translate institutional authority into practical action and explain how diplomacy structures international interaction even under conditions of conflict, asymmetry, and uncertainty. Representation, negotiation, mediation, and coercive bargaining are distinct yet interconnected functions, each governed by specific legal and procedural constraints.

4.1 Representation and communication

Representation is the foundational diplomatic function. Through accredited missions, states and other recognized entities maintain a continuous official presence in the territory or institutions of others. This presence enables structured communication that is both authoritative and legally attributable to the sending entity.

In bilateral settings, representation involves acting as the formal channel through which positions, protests, assurances, and proposals are conveyed. Diplomatic reporting constitutes a central component of this role. Diplomats are tasked with observing political, economic, and social developments in the receiving state and transmitting assessments to their home authorities. This information-gathering function is explicitly conditioned by legality. The Vienna Convention permits diplomats to ascertain conditions only by lawful means, reinforcing the boundary between legitimate observation and prohibited interference (Denza, 2016).

Signaling is another core aspect of representation. Through public statements, private démarches, attendance or absence at official events, and calibrated language, diplomats communicate intent, resolve, or restraint. Strategic ambiguity often plays a role, allowing states to preserve flexibility while conveying limits. These techniques are legally bound. Signals must respect the duty of non-interference and comply with host-state law, even when they carry political weight.

In multilateral settings, representation acquires additional complexity. Permanent missions to international organizations engage in coalition-building, agenda-setting, and procedural maneuvering. Statements delivered in plenary or committee meetings carry formal status and may contribute to the formation of institutional practice or customary norms. Representation in these contexts is less about bilateral persuasion and more about shaping collective outcomes through procedural mastery and sustained engagement (Sharp, 2009).

4.2 Negotiation and treaty-making

Negotiation is the most visible diplomatic function, yet it operates within a highly structured legal framework. Diplomatic negotiation is not informal bargaining but a rule-governed process through which political agreements are transformed into legal obligations.

Authority to negotiate is established through credentials and, where required, full powers. These instruments identify who may bind the state and under what conditions. Without proper authorization, negotiated texts lack legal effect regardless of political agreement. Conference procedure further structures negotiation through rules on agenda-setting, voting, drafting committees, and authentication of texts. These procedural elements shape outcomes by determining which proposals advance and which are excluded.

Drafting discipline is central to treaty-making. Precise language, defined terms, and interpretative clauses reduce ambiguity and future disputes. The practice of reservations allows states to tailor obligations while preserving participation, though it is constrained by object and purpose requirements. Interpretation follows established methods that prioritize text, context, and purpose, reinforcing predictability in application.

Implementation politics link negotiation back to domestic institutions. Ratification procedures, legislative approval, and administrative execution determine whether negotiated commitments take effect. Diplomacy remains involved throughout this phase, managing expectations, clarifying obligations, and addressing compliance concerns without collapsing into domestic policy-making (Aust, 2013).

4.3 Mediation, good offices, and peaceful settlement

Mediation and good offices reflect diplomacy’s role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. These functions are grounded in the principle that international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means, a foundational norm of the United Nations Charter.

Good offices involve facilitating contact between disputing parties without proposing substantive solutions. Mediation goes further by actively suggesting terms of settlement or compromise. Both functions depend on consent. Without the agreement of the parties, diplomatic involvement lacks legitimacy and effectiveness. This consent requirement distinguishes diplomatic mediation from judicial or arbitral settlement, where jurisdiction may be compulsory.

Institutional pathways shape how mediation operates. Under Chapter VI of the Charter, the Security Council and General Assembly may recommend procedures or terms of settlement, while the Secretary-General frequently exercises good offices in sensitive conflicts. These roles are legally constrained by mandates and political realities. Mediators must respect sovereignty, avoid imposing outcomes, and operate within the limits of their authorization (Bercovitch and Jackson, 2009).

The legal framing of mediation explains why it often appears politically flexible yet normatively constrained. Diplomatic mediators navigate between facilitating agreement and respecting the legal autonomy of the parties, a balance that defines both the potential and the limits of peaceful settlement.

4.4 Coercive diplomacy and bargaining under pressure

Coercive diplomacy represents a distinct function aimed at influencing behavior through the threat or calibrated use of pressure rather than outright defeat. It occupies a space between persuasion and force, relying on conditional demands backed by credible consequences.

Legally, coercive diplomacy is constrained by the prohibition on the use of force and the broader framework of the United Nations Charter. Military threats must remain below the threshold of unlawful force, while economic and political measures are increasingly channeled through sanctions regimes. Sanctions have become a preferred tool because they can be framed as collective or lawful responses to breaches of international obligations rather than unilateral coercion (Hufbauer et al., 2007).

Contemporary practice shows that coercive diplomacy now often operates through financial and regulatory mechanisms. Asset freezes, trade restrictions, and compliance obligations place finance ministries, central banks, and regulatory agencies at the center of diplomatic strategy. This shift alters the role of diplomats, who must coordinate legal, economic, and political instruments while managing escalation risks and humanitarian consequences.

Coercive diplomacy remains inherently fragile. Excessive pressure can entrench resistance or undermine legal legitimacy, while insufficient pressure fails to change behavior. Its effectiveness depends on clarity of demands, proportionality of measures, and credible pathways for de-escalation. These conditions underscore that even under pressure, diplomacy remains governed by legal norms and institutional discipline rather than raw power alone.

Together, these core functions demonstrate how diplomacy operates in practice as a legally bounded system of representation, negotiation, conflict management, and strategic influence. They show that diplomacy’s effectiveness lies not in informality or discretion alone, but in the structured interaction between law, authority, and professional practice.

5. Actors and arenas beyond the resident embassy

Diplomacy is often pictured as the work of resident embassies, yet much of contemporary diplomatic influence is exercised outside that setting. Multilateral organizations, special missions, summitry, and the involvement of non-state and sub-state actors have expanded the arenas in which diplomatic authority is performed and contested. These developments do not replace the classical legal framework; they sit on top of it, creating layered forms of representation and negotiation that depend on procedure, mandate, and access (Berridge, 2015; Sharp, 2009).

5.1 Multilateral diplomacy in international organizations

Multilateral diplomacy changes the structure of power because outcomes depend as much on procedure as on material leverage. In international organizations, procedure becomes power through control of agendas, drafting processes, voting mechanics, and credential decisions.

Agenda control is a primary gatekeeping tool. The authority to place an item on an agenda, or to defer it, determines which disputes are treated as matters of international concern and which remain politically marginalized. In practice, agenda control is exercised through bureaux, presidencies, secretariats, and informal “friends of the chair” arrangements. These mechanisms appear technical, yet they often decide the feasible range of outcomes long before a vote takes place (Hurd, 2017).

Drafting groups and “contact group” formats translate political coalitions into text. In multilateral settings, the negotiation is frequently less about the plenary debate and more about line-by-line drafting among a small set of delegations. Drafting authority can be concentrated in “penholders” or lead drafters, particularly in security and crisis contexts, giving substantial influence to those who control first drafts, sequencing, and revision cycles (Luck, 2006). Text control matters because legal obligations emerge through wording, definitions, and exceptions, and because later interpretation tends to privilege authenticated text over negotiating history (Aust, 2013).

Voting rules alter bargaining incentives. Majority voting can encourage bloc formation and rhetorical positioning, while consensus procedures can empower holdouts and generate lowest-common-denominator outcomes. The choice between consensus, qualified majority, and simple majority is therefore not neutral; it redistributes bargaining power and affects the credibility of threats to block decisions (Schermers and Blokker, 2018).

Credential disputes illustrate that representation itself is contestable. In organizations where participation depends on recognition of a government or authority, credentials become a legal-political instrument for validating one representative and excluding another. Credential controversies show that multilateral diplomacy is not merely about policies; it is also about who counts as a legitimate speaker for a state or entity (Crawford, 2006).

Compared to bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy is more rule-saturated and more dependent on coalition management. Bilateral representation centers on persuasion and signaling to one counterpart; multilateral representation requires constant alignment-building across multiple delegations, mastery of institutional rules, and strategic use of procedural opportunities to shape the text and timing of decisions (Sharp, 2009; Hurd, 2017).

5.2 Special envoys, summitry, and crisis formats

Diplomacy beyond the embassy is also carried out through ad hoc missions and high-level leader engagement. These formats respond to urgency, secrecy needs, or political sensitivity that routine resident diplomacy may not manage effectively.

Special envoys and special missions are typically time-bound and mandate-specific. They are used for conflict mediation, hostages and detainee issues, ceasefire talks, or normalization efforts where routine channels are politically blocked. Their authority depends on the clarity of mandate and the perceived backing of the sending leadership. Legally, special missions often operate in a hybrid space: they can resemble classical diplomatic agents in function, but their immunities and privileges are not always identical to those of resident missions and may depend on host state consent and applicable arrangements (Denza, 2016).

Summitry compresses bargaining into leader-to-leader interaction. It shifts leverage toward heads of state or government, who can make political commitments rapidly and trade across issue areas in ways that bureaucratic channels cannot. Summitry also changes the audience structure: commitments are often made under intense media attention and domestic scrutiny, increasing reputational stakes and narrowing room for quiet compromise (Berridge, 2015).

Yet summitry rarely completes the legal work. Even when leaders reach political agreement, technical outcomes still require legal drafting, verification mechanisms, and implementation plans. Treaties, joint statements, and security arrangements must be translated into text that can survive interpretation disputes and domestic ratification constraints. This explains a recurring pattern: summits generate political breakthroughs, while diplomats and legal advisers convert those breakthroughs into durable instruments and monitor compliance (Aust, 2013).

Crisis formats—hotlines, emergency contact groups, backchannels—serve a specific function: preventing escalation by restoring communication under time pressure. Their effectiveness depends on reliable attribution (knowing who is speaking for whom), disciplined messaging, and institutional memory. In crises, the value of diplomacy lies less in persuasion than in stabilizing expectations and creating “off-ramps” that allow de-escalation without humiliation (Jervis, 1976).

5.3 Non-state and sub-state participation

Non-state and sub-state actors shape diplomatic outcomes increasingly often, but their influence is not automatic. It depends on access, recognition by gatekeepers, and institutional design.

NGOs influence diplomacy through agenda-setting, expertise, and norm entrepreneurship. They provide information, mobilize public attention, and often supply drafting inputs in human rights, humanitarian law, environment, and arms control processes. Their effectiveness hinges on institutional openings such as consultative status, observer roles, and participation in conferences. Where states restrict access, NGO influence shifts to indirect routes: media, litigation support, and coalition pressure (Keck and Sikkink, 1998).

Corporations affect diplomacy because supply chains, finance, technology platforms, and critical infrastructure have become central to state interests. Corporate compliance decisions can determine the real-world impact of sanctions and export controls, and corporate technology choices can reshape security and information environments. This produces a practical reality: diplomats must often negotiate with private actors or incorporate private-sector constraints into state-to-state bargaining, even though classical diplomatic law was designed for state agents rather than market actors (Farrell and Newman, 2019).

Cities and sub-state governments engage in climate diplomacy, migration coordination, and economic outreach. Their authority is typically limited by domestic constitutional arrangements, but they can still generate transnational commitments, share regulatory models, and influence negotiation narratives. The legal tension here is structural: international law traditionally treats states as the primary external representatives, while modern governance needs push toward multi-level participation (Slaughter, 2004).

These developments strain state-centric legal frameworks. Classical diplomatic law presumes clearly identifiable state agents, accredited missions, and hierarchical authority. When influence is exercised through networks, partnerships, and mixed public-private arrangements, accountability becomes diffuse. The central question becomes: who is legally responsible for commitments, harmful effects, or misinformation produced through these channels? (Slaughter, 2004; Farrell and Newman, 2019).

5.4 Public diplomacy and digital diplomacy

Diplomacy is no longer confined to government-to-government communication. It also targets foreign publics and operates through digital platforms, changing speed, attribution, and escalation dynamics.

Public diplomacy is externally oriented communication aimed at foreign publics to shape perceptions, legitimacy, and long-term influence. It includes cultural diplomacy, broadcasting, educational exchanges, and strategic communication. Its distinctiveness lies in audience: the immediate interlocutor is the public rather than the foreign ministry, even if the strategic purpose remains state interest (Nye, 2004; Cull, 2008).

Digital diplomacy uses platform-mediated engagement—social media statements, rapid messaging, digital outreach, and online crisis communication. It increases speed and reach but weakens control over context. A short message can escalate a dispute by signaling resolve or contempt, can be misinterpreted across languages, and can generate domestic audience costs that narrow bargaining options (Bjola and Holmes, 2015).

Digital practice produces legal friction points that classical frameworks do not fully resolve:

1. Disinformation and attribution: False or manipulated content can be disseminated rapidly, and attribution to state organs may be contested. This complicates responsibility and response calibration in diplomatic crises (UNESCO, 2023).

2. Platform governance and official speech: Private platforms moderate content according to corporate policies, which can collide with diplomatic communication needs and raise questions about the dependence of public diplomacy on private infrastructures (Bjola and Holmes, 2015).

3. Non-interference boundaries: Public statements and targeted messaging toward foreign publics can resemble influence operations. The legal line between permissible persuasion and unlawful interference is contested, fact-dependent, and politically sensitive, increasing the risk of reciprocal retaliation and expulsions (Denza, 2016).

Despite these shifts, digital diplomacy does not eliminate the need for confidential channels. Negotiation still requires controlled environments for trade-offs and credible assurances. The practical consequence is institutional layering: public-facing digital signaling operates alongside private diplomatic communication, and misalignment between the two can undermine credibility or trigger unintended escalation (Sharp, 2009; Bjola and Holmes, 2015).

6. Professional duties, ethics, and accountability

Diplomacy depends on trust in roles, procedures, and legal protections. That trust is undermined when professional duties are confused with personal privilege, when secrecy becomes a shield against scrutiny, or when coercive methods are used without legal or ethical discipline. A credible account of diplomacy must therefore address the normative framework that governs diplomatic conduct: why immunities exist, how abuses are handled lawfully, which accountability mechanisms constrain executive discretion, and how ethical standards can be articulated in settings marked by unequal bargaining power.

6.1 Functional necessity versus impunity claims

The doctrinal foundation of diplomatic immunities is functional necessity. Immunities protect the performance of official functions by preventing the receiving state from using its coercive powers to intimidate, obstruct, or manipulate foreign representatives. This logic is embedded in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which frames privileges and immunities as instruments enabling the efficient performance of mission functions rather than personal entitlements (Denza, 2016).

Impunity claims arise when immunity is treated as a blanket exemption from legal responsibility. That framing is legally and institutionally inaccurate. Immunity limits the receiving state’s jurisdiction; it does not erase wrongfulness, extinguish responsibility, or prevent lawful remedies through other channels. The system is designed around non-coercive responses that preserve diplomatic communication while enabling accountability.

Lawful responses to abuse can be mapped as a structured toolbox:

Waiver of immunity by the sending state. Waiver is the most direct pathway to criminal accountability in the receiving state, particularly in serious cases. The political reality is that waivers are rare, but the legal availability of waivers is central because it preserves the principle that immunity is not equivalent to exoneration (Denza, 2016).

Recall or termination of functions by the sending state. Recall is the standard internal disciplinary response. It preserves the sending state’s control over its agents and can be paired with domestic prosecution where the sending state has jurisdiction.

Persona non grata declarations. Article 9 enables the receiving state to remove a diplomat without proving misconduct or providing reasons. This is the sharpest operational remedy when jurisdiction is blocked. It protects the receiving state’s interests while avoiding an enforcement confrontation that could escalate the dispute (Berridge, 2015).

Civil remedies where allowed. Immunity from civil jurisdiction is not uniform across all categories and contexts. The legal architecture recognizes limited exceptions and procedural pathways, although these are often narrow in practice. Civil avenues can also exist in the sending state.

Internal discipline and professional sanctions. Diplomatic services rely on internal codes, career consequences, and administrative sanctions. While less visible than prosecution, these mechanisms matter because diplomacy operates as a professional community where reputation and credibility are essential for effectiveness (Sharp, 2009).

The doctrinal point is that diplomatic law is built to avoid coercive confrontation between states while preserving the possibility of accountability through lawful substitutes. Abuse does not invalidate immunity; it activates alternative mechanisms designed to protect both the integrity of the host state and the continuity of diplomatic relations.

6.2 Secrecy, transparency, and democratic control

Secrecy is instrumentally necessary for diplomacy. Negotiation requires protected space for candour, trade-offs, and de-escalation. If every concession is immediately public, parties become performative, domestic audiences punish compromise, and agreements become harder to reach. Confidentiality also protects sensitive intelligence, personal safety of intermediaries, and crisis communications that must occur rapidly without media distortion (Aust, 2013).

Yet secrecy is normatively contested because it concentrates foreign-affairs power in executive hands and can mask abuse, corruption, or unlawful commitments. Democratic legitimacy requires that secrecy be bounded and accountable rather than absolute. The question is not whether secrecy should exist, but how it is constrained.

Accountability mechanisms typically operate across three levels:

Parliamentary oversight and budget control. Legislatures can require reporting, hold hearings, and control funding for diplomatic services, aid, and security cooperation. These tools are often more influential than formal approval powers because they affect the executive’s capacity to implement commitments.

Reporting duties and internal executive controls. Foreign ministries rely on reporting chains, legal advisers, recordkeeping requirements, and authorization procedures for commitments. These internal controls are the first line of accountability because they structure how diplomats receive instructions and document their actions.

Judicial review where domestic law permits. Courts may review treaty ratification procedures, administrative measures linked to foreign affairs, or rights impacts of diplomatic decisions. Judicial review is frequently limited by doctrines of justiciability, national security, and deference, but its availability can discipline executive behaviour and clarify legal boundaries (Slaughter, 2004).

The overall balance depends on constitutional design, but the normative benchmark remains stable: secrecy can be justified when it is necessary for effective diplomacy and when institutional controls exist that prevent secrecy from becoming impunity.

6.3 Ethics of persuasion, coercion, and unequal bargaining

Diplomacy inevitably involves persuasion and bargaining under conditions of unequal power. Ethical problems arise when influence becomes coercion that undermines autonomy, when pressure produces disproportionate civilian harm, or when information operations corrode the minimal trust required for negotiation.

Three recurrent ethical risk zones are central.

First, coercive measures and conditionality. Sanctions, aid conditionality, and trade restrictions are widely used tools of leverage. Their legitimacy depends not only on formal legality but also on proportionality and civilian impact. Broad economic measures can degrade public welfare without changing elite behaviour, generating moral costs and reputational blowback that undermine the diplomatic objective (Hufbauer et al., 2007). Contemporary scholarship emphasizes that sanctions design, targeting, and humanitarian carve-outs are not technical details; they are ethical determinants of legitimacy.

Second, information operations and manipulation. Public diplomacy and strategic communication can slide into deception or engineered polarization. Even when such measures are effective in the short term, they carry long-term legitimacy costs by eroding credibility and increasing the likelihood of reciprocal escalation. In an environment of rapid digital dissemination, ethical discipline in official speech becomes a strategic requirement as well as a normative one (Bjola and Holmes, 2015).

Third, “aid-for-policy” bargains and dependency. When essential resources are exchanged for political concessions, bargaining can become structurally coercive. This is most acute where asymmetric vulnerability exists, such as debt distress, humanitarian crises, or security dependency. The ethical issue is not bargaining itself but the exploitation of vulnerability in ways that undermine self-determination and sustainable governance.

Criteria for ethically defensible diplomacy can be expressed in operational terms:

1. Proportionality: the means used should be calibrated to the objective, especially when measures impose predictable civilian costs (Hufbauer et al., 2007).

2. Clarity of aims: demands should be specific enough to allow compliance and de-escalation; vague or shifting demands convert pressure into domination rather than bargaining.

3. Credible off-ramps: diplomacy should offer pathways for compliance and reversal of punitive measures; punishment without exit options incentivizes defiance.

4. Respect for agency: persuasion should not depend on deception, coercive dependency, or the instrumentalization of domestic divisions.

5. Accountability: decision-making about coercive tools should be reviewable through institutional mechanisms, even if details remain confidential.

Ethics in diplomacy is not an optional moral overlay. It functions as a constraint that protects legitimacy, preserves credibility, and reduces escalation risk. Diplomacy that treats ethical limits as irrelevant may secure tactical wins but tends to lose strategic influence as trust, cooperation, and reputational capital erode over time (Nye, 2004; Sharp, 2009).

Also read

• The Sources Of International Law

• What Is International Law?

• The Principle of Good Faith in International Law

• Nicaragua v United States of America: ICJ Case Guide

• Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium)

• The Donroe Doctrine: Power, Law, and Hemispheric Control

• Jurisdictional Gaps in Subsea Data Cables

• The Right to Protest in International Law

7. Contemporary stress tests for diplomacy

Contemporary diplomacy operates under structural pressures that test both its legal foundations and its practical credibility. Four stressors are especially consequential: the persistent ambiguity around espionage and intelligence activity; the physical vulnerability of missions during unrest and armed conflict; the pervasive use of sanctions and the resulting “geoeconomic” turn in statecraft; and the information environment’s acceleration, which compresses decision time and magnifies misperception. Each stressor forces diplomats and legal advisers to work at the edge of established doctrine, where legal rules, institutional habit, and political risk intersect.

7.1 Espionage allegations and countermeasures

Espionage sits at the boundary of diplomatic practice because it is simultaneously common in practice and constrained in law. The legal framework of diplomatic relations assumes lawful means of information-gathering and a duty of non-interference, both central to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Denza, 2016). Yet intelligence collection remains a persistent feature of interstate competition, creating a chronic mismatch between formal legal expectations and strategic behavior.

This mismatch generates a predictable pattern. When the receiving state alleges espionage, it faces a constraint: direct criminal enforcement against accredited diplomats is generally blocked by immunity. The response, therefore, is typically administrative and political rather than judicial. The standard remedies are:

• Persona non grata declarations, which remove individuals without requiring proof or public justification and avoid a jurisdictional confrontation (Denza, 2016).

• Mission downsizing or closure of facilities, framed as protection of national security or reciprocity measures.

• Reciprocity cycles, where expulsions and restrictions are matched by the sending state, escalating into institutional degradation of diplomatic channels (Berridge, 2015).

Doctrinally, these responses reflect the logic that diplomatic law privileges uninterrupted interstate communication over coercive enforcement. Practically, however, repeated espionage disputes corrode trust and reduce the informational value of diplomatic engagement. The diplomatic system remains functional, but it becomes thinner, more transactional, and more prone to crisis misreading—precisely because routine channels of contact are weakened by cyclical retaliation (Sharp, 2009).

7.2 Mission protection amid unrest and armed conflict

The physical protection of diplomatic missions is one of the clearest doctrinal obligations in diplomatic law and one of the most difficult to fulfill in practice. The receiving state has a special duty to protect mission premises and personnel, even during serious internal disorder. The obligation is not merely negative (refraining from entry); it is positive, requiring measures to prevent intrusion, damage, or attacks (Denza, 2016).

Crisis settings expose two recurring legal and operational problems.

First, attribution and due diligence. Attacks on missions are often carried out by non-state actors—protesters, militias, or loosely organized groups. The legal issue becomes whether the receiving state failed in its duty of protection (a due diligence failure), and, in more severe situations, whether state responsibility is engaged through complicity or subsequent endorsement. The doctrinal importance of this distinction was underscored in the International Court of Justice judgment in the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case, which treated the failure to restore inviolability and protect staff as a breach of binding obligations despite the initial involvement of private actors (ICJ, 1980).

Second, escalation management. When missions are attacked, responses must balance legal protest, protective action, and the risk of escalation. States often adopt staged responses: urgent démarches; public condemnation; evacuation or temporary relocation; demand for security guarantees; and, if failures persist, downgrading or breaking relations. Breaking relations can reduce immediate risk to personnel but also removes communication channels when they are most needed. The practical lesson is that mission protection is not only a legal duty but a strategic stabilizer. When it fails, the risk of miscalculation increases because backchannel capacity shrinks and reciprocal hostility becomes more likely (Watson, 1982; Sharp, 2009).

7.3 Sanctions saturation and geoeconomic fragmentation

Sanctions have become a central instrument of contemporary diplomacy, transforming how influence is applied and how negotiations are structured. The widespread use of targeted financial measures, export controls, and restrictions on technology and services has shifted diplomacy’s operational center of gravity toward financial infrastructure and compliance ecosystems—banks, payment systems, shipping insurers, and technology supply chains (Farrell and Newman, 2019).

This shift produces at least three diplomatic consequences.

Negotiation credibility becomes harder to maintain. Sanctions are often justified as reversible tools designed to change behavior. Yet repeated use and layered restrictions can make reversibility politically difficult and administratively complex. If the sanctioned party doubts that compliance will actually produce relief, bargaining incentives collapse. Coercive tools then harden into a permanent condition, reducing diplomacy to signaling and containment rather than problem-solving (Hufbauer et al., 2007).

Humanitarian carve-outs become structurally significant. Even when sanctions are targeted, indirect effects can be severe because private actors over-comply to reduce risk. This can restrict access to banking, insurance, and logistics for humanitarian goods. The diplomatic challenge is to design carve-outs that are legally clear and operationally usable, which often requires technical guidance, licensing systems, and active reassurance to the private sector. These are not marginal issues; they determine whether sanctions remain defensible and whether diplomacy retains legitimacy in the eyes of third states and affected populations (Hufbauer et al., 2007).

Strategic miscalculation risks increase under fragmentation. Geoeconomic fragmentation encourages parallel systems—alternative financial messaging, supply chain diversification, and regional trading blocs—reducing the leverage of any single sanctioning coalition over time. Diplomats must therefore reassess assumptions about coercive effectiveness and consider second-order consequences, including retaliation, escalation in other domains, and long-term erosion of cooperative regimes (Farrell and Newman, 2019).

7.4 Diplomacy under information disorder

Diplomacy now operates within an information environment defined by speed, saturation, and contested credibility. Information disorder affects diplomacy in two ways: it reshapes the external environment in which diplomats act, and it changes the internal decision process of governments by compressing time and amplifying audience pressure.

Speed and public audience costs. Leaders and officials increasingly signal positions in real time through platform-mediated statements. This reduces room for deliberate ambiguity and makes private bargaining harder because public commitments create “audience costs” for compromise (Jervis, 1976). Rapid communication also increases escalation risk: messages intended for deterrence can be interpreted as provocation, particularly across linguistic and cultural contexts.

Attribution and manipulation. False or manipulated content can prompt diplomatic responses before verification, and hostile actors can exploit this by provoking overreaction. When attribution is uncertain, even accurate responses can be perceived as opportunistic, weakening credibility. The core problem is epistemic: diplomacy requires shared minimal facts to bargain, and information disorder erodes that shared baseline (UNESCO, 2023).

Erosion of confidential channels. Leaks, instant commentary, and partisan framing weaken the protective space necessary for negotiation. This pushes diplomacy toward performative posturing and away from problem-solving. It also encourages the substitution of communication for negotiation—more statements, fewer workable deals (Sharp, 2009).

Institutional fixes are available, but they require discipline rather than novelty:

1. Disciplined strategic communication: clear separation between deterrent signaling and negotiating positions; tighter control over official messaging; reduced improvisation in crisis.

2. Verification habits: structured internal protocols for rapid source evaluation before public response; reliance on cross-checked intelligence and trusted diplomatic reporting.

3. Resilient backchannels: maintaining confidential contact points—through protecting powers, special envoys, or discreet multilateral intermediaries—so that bargaining remains possible even when public narratives are inflamed (Watson, 1982; Sharp, 2009).

These stress tests do not render diplomacy obsolete. They clarify what diplomacy is for: maintaining workable channels of communication under conditions where misunderstanding, coercion, and domestic pressure could otherwise drive states toward uncontrolled escalation.

8. Conclusion: A doctrinal definition of diplomacy

A doctrinal definition of diplomacy must be narrow enough to exclude metaphor and broad enough to capture modern practice. Diplomacy is a rule-structured institution through which political entities manage their external relations by means of recognized representatives acting with attributable authority. Its distinctive feature is not courtesy or general cross-border activity, but the institutionalization of communication and bargaining in a system without a central sovereign. Diplomacy translates political intent into structured interaction that can produce coordination, de-escalation, and legal commitment.

Three elements are essential to this definition. First, diplomacy is institutional. It relies on continuous channels of contact—resident missions, special envoys, multilateral delegations, and crisis formats—embedded in professional practices and procedural routines that persist beyond particular disputes (Berridge, 2015; Sharp, 2009). Second, diplomacy is representational. It presupposes recognized status and authorized agents, because only recognized representatives can speak and act with the capacity to engage the responsibility, credibility, and commitments of the entities they represent (Crawford, 2006). Third, diplomacy is rule-governed. It operates inside a legal architecture that both enables and constrains it: the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations codify mission functions, privileges, immunities, and duties; complementary regimes protect internationally protected persons and suppress attacks on diplomatic agents; and diplomatic protection doctrines define how states may espouse claims on behalf of injured nationals (Denza, 2016; ILC, 2006).

This legal architecture clarifies what diplomacy does and why it remains indispensable. Diplomacy performs representation and communication, negotiation and treaty-making, mediation and facilitation of peaceful settlement, and coercive bargaining through calibrated pressure. These functions occur within defined limits, particularly the prohibition of interference, respect for host-state law, and the use of lawful means of information-gathering. When misconduct occurs, accountability is routed through institutional mechanisms—waiver, recall, persona non grata, and internal discipline—designed to preserve interstate communication while preventing the receiving state from using coercive jurisdiction as a tool of political control (Denza, 2016).

The contemporary environment confirms diplomacy’s necessity while exposing unresolved doctrinal questions. Digital communication accelerates signaling, increases audience costs, and complicates attribution, weakening the confidentiality on which bargaining often depends (Bjola and Holmes, 2015). Geoeconomic statecraft has moved influence into financial and regulatory infrastructures, requiring diplomats to integrate legal compliance ecosystems into negotiation strategy and raising new legitimacy questions about collateral civilian effects and over-compliance (Farrell and Newman, 2019). The widening participation of non-state and sub-state actors challenges state-centric assumptions embedded in classical diplomatic law, especially regarding responsibility, accountability, and the legal status of commitments made through networked governance (Slaughter, 2004).

A serious research agenda follows from these pressures. It should prioritize: (1) clarifying the boundary between permissible public diplomacy and unlawful interference in a platform-mediated environment; (2) refining legal and institutional standards for sanctions design, humanitarian safeguards, and reversibility to preserve negotiation credibility; (3) developing clearer doctrines of responsibility and accountability for diplomacy conducted through hybrid public-private arrangements; and (4) strengthening protection and crisis communication mechanisms for missions under conditions of internal collapse and armed conflict. The aim is not to replace diplomacy’s classical legal foundations, but to adapt the rule framework so that diplomacy remains effective, legitimate, and legally intelligible in contemporary conditions.

References

1. Arranged alphabetically by author surname (or organization name where applicable), using Harvard style.

2. Aust, A. (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Bercovitch, J. and Jackson, R. (2009) Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

4. Berridge, G.R. (2015) Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. 5th edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

5. Bjola, C. and Holmes, M. (2015) Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

6. Crawford, J. (2006) The Creation of States in International Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Cull, N.J. (2008) Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past. Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press.

8. Denza, E. (2016) Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

9. Farrell, H. and Newman, A.L. (2019) ‘Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion’, International Security, 44(1), pp. 42–79.

10. Hufbauer, G.C., Schott, J.J., Elliott, K.A. and Oegg, B. (2007) Economic Sanctions Reconsidered. 3rd edn. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

11. Hurd, I. (2017) International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12. International Court of Justice (1980) United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980. The Hague: ICJ.

13. International Law Commission (2006) Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with Commentaries. New York: United Nations.

14. Jervis, R. (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

15. Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

16. Luck, E.C. (2006) UN Security Council: Practice and Promise. London: Routledge.

17. Nye, J.S. (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.

18. Schermers, H.G. and Blokker, N.M. (2018) International Institutional Law. 6th edn. Leiden: Brill.

19. Sharp, P. (2009) Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20. Slaughter, A.-M. (2004) A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

21. UNESCO (2023) Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms [online]. Paris: UNESCO. Available at: https://www.unesco.org (Accessed: 3 February 2026).

22. United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 3 February 2026).

23. United Nations (1961) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf (Accessed: 3 February 2026).

24. United Nations (1963) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf (Accessed: 3 February 2026).

25. United Nations (1973) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_4_1973.pdf (Accessed: 3 February 2026).

26. Watson, A. (1982) Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. London: Methuen.