For centuries, the fact that diplomats represented
venerable principals – from powerful monarchs to
established states – guaranteed their protected and
privileged status. Whereas long-standing rules of diplomatic
immunity and privileges by and large continue to be upheld
in interstate relations, popular perceptions of diplomats have
changed in recent decades. To the extent that diplomats are
perceived as symbols of disliked countries, religions or
“-isms”, the quality of standing for others has been
transformed from a rationale for diplomatic immunity to a
rationale for political violence. No longer being inviolable
symbols, diplomatic representatives have increasingly
become highly vulnerable symbols.
Stanzel, V. New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st Century.
SWP Research Paper 2018, RP 11, November 2018,with adaptations.
Considering the ideas of the text, mark the following items as right (C) or wrong (E).
-
The author of the text expresses concern for the current standing of diplomats.
-
The text states that contemporary diplomats have lost prestige compared to their predecessors.
-
It is correct to infer from the text that being a diplomat is now more dangerous than it was in the past.
-
According to the author, interstate norms of diplomacy have changed substantially in recent years.