![]() Its aim is to mediate between processes of universalism and particularism. Diplomacy as an activity is a collection of social practices, roles, norms and rules. However, when we consider diplomacy to be an activity instead of an organisation a new picture emerges. Prima facie, comparing medieval and present diplomacy would thus enfeeble the historical analogy of the neo-medieval paradigm. Pre-modern (medieval) diplomacy was depictured as infrequent, slow and undeveloped. According to the traditional canon diplomacy only came fully into being in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the appearance of foreign ministries, permanent embassies, diplomatic texts and a set of diplomatic norms and rules (Mattingly, 1955). Although not so much en vogue anymore, the neo-medieval paradigm has a significant added value in that it introduces an historical component in the current debate about the metamorphosis of the world.ĥAs of late diplomatic studies literature held a primarily State-centric view. States are at the same time integrating into larger units (the European Union is the classic example) and disintegrating into smaller ones, such as regional or local entities. Especially in the 1990s and the first decade of our current millennium, new medievalism has been presented as a framework to analyze the simultaneous processes of fragmentation and integration, associated with globalisation. Ĥ A number of scholars have been using the concept of neo-medievalism to map recent developments in international relations (Kratochwil, 2011). This new international environment has been described in such different ways as “global governance” (Neuman, 2008), “new medievalism” or even “ empire” (Negri, Hardt, 2000). These changes have resulted in a shift from the modern so-called Westphalian State-system to a new postmodern international system (Cooper, 1996). 541), a number of tendencies in today’s diplomacy come to the fore showing a striking resemblance with medieval diplomacy, and regions play a paramount role in this process.ģGlobalisation led to fundamental changes in sovereignty, statehood and the territorial character of the State. When we see beyond the State-centric concept of diplomacy ( Hoffmann, 2003, p. However, one important element seems under-researched in the literature on neo-medievalism: an analysis and comparison of the diplomatic relations between the various polities that form the constituent units of both the medieval and neo-medieval international system. Neo-medievalism has a significant added value in that it introduces an historical component in the current debate about the metamorphosis of the world. Looking through the lens of neo-medievalism can prove to be a fruitful way of looking back.ĢThe neo-medieval paradigm claims that we are entering a new global setting that in certain aspects resembles that of the Middle Ages. Looking back at past diplomatic practices might shed new light on contemporary diplomacy. By conceiving diplomacy as “the mechanism of representation, communication and negotiation through which States and other international actors (own italics) conduct their business” ( Melissen, 1999) rather than “the official channels of communication employed by the members of a system of States (own italics) (B erridge, Keens-Soper et al., 2001)”, a new and more dynamic picture of diplomacy emerges. Recent evolutions in diplomatic theory and practice however repudiate this State-centric exclusivity. 1 Until recently, diplomacy has been regarded as the exclusive domain of the State.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |