Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution1
of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states
and other international actors communicate, negotiate and
otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take4
into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern
interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage
involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or7
“double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of
globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of
International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core10
concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the
boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very
definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a13
still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only
its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than
ever before.16
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through
the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the
stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce19
fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts.
Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals,
agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for22
leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded.
At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an
open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy25
remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to
suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on28
leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to
multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with
domestic as well as international interests and values in play,31
leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the
complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow
deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other34
modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and
elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces37
elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most
visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club
diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of40
insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of
diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are
involved in this central form of international practice, it is the43
“organized performances” of leaders that possess the most
salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic
dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues46
and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions
of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate
at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional49
credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew
F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern
Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).