Diplomacy and International Relations: a diplomatic theory of international relations

Professional diplomats and the few scholars who study them believe that their understanding of what happens, what ought to happen, and what it is reasonable to expect could happen in international relations is superior to the accounts and theoretical approaches which currently dominate the academic subject of International Relations. In part, this belief results from the "practioner's conceit," the natural but erroneous assumption that those who "do" have a better grasp of what they do than those who merely study and teach. It also results, however, from a widespread disposition among those who study and teach international relations not to like the way in which they are undertaken. Indeed, the origins of the modern discipline of International Relations lie the belief, widely and reasonably held in 1919, that the existing arrangements had not worked very well and either required wholesale reform or dictated the adoption of a new power-oriented political practice for even liberal democratic states if they were to survive. Consequently, diplomacy and what diplomats had to say about international relations were, and remain, neglected. By reformers they are seen as part of the problem which reforms are designed to address. By survivors they are regarded as either unimportant or, where they manage to become important, dangerous purveyors of bad advice. The premise of this study is that coherent theory of international relations enjoying explanatory and prescriptive (but not predictive) power is to be found in the actions, utterances and reflections of professional diplomats. Accordingly, it will seek to develop an argument for a prudential ethic of international behavior resting upon three important aspects of diplomacy's own professional ethic, its acceptance of: the unavoidability of living in separate communities; its acceptance that this is, in fact, a desirable state of affairs; and its acceptance of the need to live with unresolved and often unresolvable differences.

Serving the Prince by Serving Peace: the socialization and education of new diplomats

Diplomacy Under Duress: difficult hands and tight spots