This introductory article explores the multiple synergies between international practice theory and diplomatic studies. The timing for this cross-fertilizing exchange could not be better, as the study of diplomacy enters a phase of theorization while practice scholars look to confront the approach to new empirical and analytical challenges. The article first defines diplomacy as a historically and culturally contingent bundle of practices that are analytically alike in their claim to represent a given polity to the outside world. Then the key analytical wagers that practice theory makes are introduced, and debates currently raging in the discipline are briefly reviewed. Next, it is suggested what a practice theory of diplomacy may look like, discussing a variety of existing works through their common objective to explain the constitution of world politics in and through practice. Finally, a few research avenues to foster the dialogue between diplomatic studies and practice theory are outlined, centered on the nexuses of transformation and reproduction, rationality and know-how, and the technical vs. social dimensions of practices –diplomatic or otherwise.

Immersed in the flow of activities, diplomats and other international practitioners are simultaneously influenced by past experiences and constantly innovating in response to situations that are never exactly the same. The conceptual tools of International Relations scholars must be capable of capturing this practical reality. To that end, I introduce in this article a relational approach to agency that can make sense of practitioners’ innovative ways of doing things in practice. Practice theorists in IR often emphasize hierarchies, struggle, and the role of habitus in shaping practices. Both building on and departing from them, I dig into the logic of practical sense and discuss Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of regulated improvisations, virtuosos/amateurs, and illusio to grasp agency in practice. I develop the idea that international actors are primarily practical and put improvisations and virtuosity — rather than rationality, cognitive processes, emotions, norm-compliance, path-dependency or even habits/habitus — in the foreground. I contend that this approach holds broader promise for the analysis of international politics than existing conceptions. We have much to gain by focusing on how international practitioners in their local contexts actually improvise in the moment. These improvisations in specific sites are constitutive of the ‘big picture’ of international politics. I take diplomatic practices in embassies and in permanent representations as an illustration.

This article shows that the simultaneous management of three different social roles -knowledge producer, representative of a government, and bureaucrat -defines the everyday work and practice of contemporary diplomats posted at embassies. This argument rests on an analysis of information gathering in Western embassies before, during and after the eighteen days of the revolt that ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011. I first identify various practices influencing diplomatic knowledge and prompting the production of particular interpretations of the revolt in Egypt. I then analyze how actors manage multiple positions and dispositions within overlapping social fields. This point illustrates what practice theorists mean when they assert that agents are always speaking from a position. Overall, the article unravels what being a diplomat posted abroad actually consists of in practice, complementing existing studies on the diplomatic mode of knowledge production. I provide insights on the interactions between diplomats and non-state actors and show that diplomats' social skills and analytic competence constantly require and support each other.

This article analyses international conflicts through defining and discussing narrative practices. We distinguish various sites where clashes of narratives materialise and specific narrative practices are performed: in traditional diplomacy, in public diplomacy and in the media. We reach three conclusions: narratives influence all aspects of diplomatic practice, including strategic negotiations in secret talks and public engagements; state and non-state actors' practices enact narratives and the growing interconnectedness can fosters clashes of narratives; in crafting and performing political narratives, diplomats and non-state actors refer extensively to legal norms and international law exploiting them as elements of narration. At a theoretical level, we incorporate practice theory into narrative analysis and vice versa, building a bridge between the practice turn and the linguistic turn in constructivist thinking. To illustrate, we analyse the Crimean crisis in February and March 2014 that opposed Russia and Ukraine and its Western supporters.

In the social sciences, IR included, the study of practices starts from a very simple intuition: social realities - and international politics - are constituted by human beings acting in and on the world. Their ways of doing things delineate practices that enact and give meaning to the world. When seen through these lenses, the concerns of other IR approaches – war, peace, negotiations, states, diplomacy, international organizations, and so on – are bundles of individual and collective practices woven together and producing specific outcomes. Rather than as a unified approach, the Practice Turn (PT) in International Relations Theory is best approached through a series of conceptual innovations and tools that introduce novel ways of thinking about international politics. The review article here first introduces the main conceptual tools in PT’s toolbox focusing on defining practices, the logic of practice, field, capital, and symbolic domination. It then situates PT within IR, and shows how it departs from both rationalism and constructivism. The article closes by focusing on the methodological, epistemological and normative debates among practice turners.