Conclusion — Liminality, Co-existing Diplomatic Orders and the “New” Diplomatic Heteronomy

Abstract

This book was motivated by what we find is a set of narrow scholarly accounts of the nature of change in diplomacy as an institution of the international order found in the social scientific literature. As elaborated upon in Chapter 1, some of the accounts explain change by focusing on the changing environments in which diplomatic activities take place. Environmental dynamics are seen as producing a certain kind of dominant actor and selecting away others. Other accounts focus on the structural factors and explain change in the diplomatic order by focusing on internal dynamics of the diplomatic order, in which a certain kind of structure generate path-dependencies and enable particular kinds of change. Finally, a third kind of account focuses on the dynamics of practices and argues that change in diplomacy is produced by shifts in how diplomatic practices are conduced at the individual level in organizations involved in diplomacy — be they governmental or non-governmental. While all these accounts provide useful insights, their neat explanations do not cover the complex character of change and stability in the institutionalized order of diplomacy. Today’s diplomatic order features multiple actors different from states yet participating within the diplomatic order formally and legally on a par with states.