On the Manner of Practising the New Diplomacy

Heine, Jorge

doi:10.1057/9780230227422_17

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Competing sources of authority have emerged, constituting a new “global heteropolarity,” in which a wide range of new actors are producing profound global effects through interconnectivity (Constantinou and Der Derian :18). Professional diplomacy is also rapidly shifting from an elitist club activity to global networking (Heine ). Claiming today that diplomatic knowledge is or should be the specialist preserve of official ambassadors or bureaucratic elites is to say the least an anachronism—though a dominant one within national diplomatic services.…”

Section: Diplomacy As a Mode Of Livingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Statecraft and Humanism: Diplomacy and Its Forms of Knowledge

Constantinou

2013

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diplomacy is concomitant with humanity's highest hopes and deepest frustrations. Complex global problems demand—but might not receive—deep understanding, skilled advocacy, and sustained negotiation and innovation. Diplomatic method, this article argues, emerges by combining advocacy and reflexivity, and in modernity as dialectic between statecraft and humanism. Statecraft is currently dominant, but humanist aspirations remain pertinent, if often repressed. By examining the issue of diplomatic knowledge in functional and historical contexts—and crucially by looking at it beyond information and intelligence gathering—the article examines how humanism becomes a usable praxis in diplomacy. Specifically, how humanist praxis aspires to provoke thinking and encourage the production of knowledge that can bring about changes in diplomatic perspective and policy. Practitioners can thus connect to diplomacy not merely as passive servants of policy but as active humans pursuing more than restricted technical goals. This enhances not simply a top‐down, policy implementation practice, but a bottom‐up diplomacy from different places, utilizing the increasingly globalized “new common knowledge” to share insights, define action, and support diverse initiatives. The humanist legacy, in short, highlights diplomacy as a knowledge practice, pursuing a range of national, cross‐national, and postnational goals, negotiating interests but also social meaning and identity, something that encourages its revisiting as a mode of living.

show abstract

Section: Diplomacy As a Mode Of Livingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Statecraft and Humanism: Diplomacy and Its Forms of Knowledge

Constantinou

2013

Int Stud Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This threat has prompted a growing network of states, businesses and civil society organizations campaigning to create new international norms, treaties and institutions to regulate, control and alleviate the impact of SALW (Stavrianakis, 2010). This network seems to reflect the arguments of the ‘new diplomacy’ literature, which posits that the global policy‐making arena has entered an era of growing complexity in the post‐Cold War world (Heine, 2006; McRae and Hubert, 2001; Riordan, 2003; Rutherford et al, 2003). Where Cold War international arms negotiations occurred largely within a state‐ and superpower‐centric framework, reifying classic geopolitical interests (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

Bolton¹,

Sakamoto²,

Griffiths³

2012

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article will show how trends of globalization have transformed both the proliferation of and efforts to control small arms and light weapons (SALW). We first examine how the distribution of small arms has become more diffused, moving away from a state‐centric model of ‘arms transfers’ to circulations of SALW through outsourced networks comprising a myriad of public and private actors. We then show how the post‐Cold War international environment has allowed progressive norm entrepreneurs like middle powers and NGOs greater voice in determining SALW policy. Simultaneously, however, it has also allowed great power states and defense companies to benefit from the legitimacy of associating with human rights groups, ‘capturing’ the SALW policy process, particularly the Arms Trade Treaty, in a way that protects their interests. Efforts to transfer, exchange and control small arms and light weapons are thus indicative of wider global political processes in which power is diffused through multilayered networks and complexes. Exploring the policy implications, we argue that these networks enable actors to augment their power and capacity through alliances with other agents, but simultaneously constrain their scope of action and ability to control the process. This makes it more difficult for actors representing the public interest to override those acting in private or particularist interests. Policy Implications Globalization makes it more difficult for those making policy in the public interest to constrain and resist capture by private interests, or to control the direction of the process when there are many actors involved. Therefore: Global policy success requires a thorough understanding of how to navigate and operate in multilevel, multi‐actor, multinational and multi‐scale networks. Global policy makers and activists need to become increasingly familiar with operating strategically in networks and complexes of public and private actors, selecting allies and contractors who share values and interests that are consistent with the intended policy outcomes. A smaller, more coherent campaign network can sometimes be more effective and mobilize more strategically than a broad‐based, diffused coalition. Rather than focusing simply on state‐centric treaties, global policy making around multifaceted issues like SALW proliferation may be better served by created multilayered ‘regime complexes’, incorporating a network of mutually reinforcing institutions, norms, treaties, programs, embargoes and campaigns.

show abstract

“…The ‘new diplomacy’ involves action in multiple tracks, levels, institutions and forums. It is, as Jorge Heine has described it, a form of ‘network diplomacy’, requiring negotiation of a wide range of relationships with state, NGO and commercial actors (Heine, 2006, pp. 3–10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Middle Power–NGO Coalitions in Global Policy: The Case of the Cluster Munitions Ban

Bolton¹,

Nash²

2010

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medium-sized wealthy states -middle powers -and global civil society networks are increasingly joining forces to influence the global policy agenda on issues of international law, justice, humanitarianism and development. These middle power-NGO coalitions use the comparative advantages of both state and nonstate actors in synergistic partnerships. States represent the coalitions' interests in international negotiations and conferences, provide donor funding and offer diplomatic support. For their part, NGOs gather on-the-ground research, provide technical expertise, lobby governments, mobilise public opinion and generate media publicity. This article uses the case of the campaign to ban cluster munitions, culminating in the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, to examine the organisation, efforts and impact of such middle power-NGO coalitions.

show abstract

On the Manner of Practising the New Diplomacy

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Between Statecraft and Humanism: Diplomacy and Its Forms of Knowledge

Between Statecraft and Humanism: Diplomacy and Its Forms of Knowledge

Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

The Role of Middle Power–NGO Coalitions in Global Policy: The Case of the Cluster Munitions Ban

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About