International Relations/Political Science Academic year 2020-2021
Diplomatic Encounters: international politics as social interaction.
RI-SP116 - Autumn - 6ECTS
Course Description
The notion of international negotiations as meetings between
“states” or heads of states distracts from the fact that diplomacy is a large and complex social event. Multi- and bilateral diplomacy involves myriads of interactions among individuals (e.g., diplomats, international bureaucrats, experts, and private actors). These interactions are further mediated through technologies (e.g., ICT), artefacts (e.g., documents, architecture), the physical limitations of human bodies, general social notions that are attached to individuals in general and diplomats in particular (such as gender), and many more. This course sheds light on the various interactions among these elements in order to better understand diplomacy and negotiation dynamics. Questions include: who is involved in these diplomatic interactions? (How) do national capacities, technologies, artefacts, and the social and physical attributes of the human body shape diplomatic interactions? Are international secretariats just facilitators of diplomatic interactions or do they influence them? How does the gendering of the diplomat’s body matter? How do these interactions sum up to produce international treaties? And, most importantly: what mechanisms of power run through these interactions?
PROFESSOR Aurel Niederberger Office hours
ASSISTANT Somabha Mohanty Office hours
Syllabus
The purpose of this course is to broaden our understanding of channels, sources, and applications of power in international relations by unpacking the social and material interactions involved in diplomacy.
A particular emphasis will be placed on potential avenues for further research: together, we will explore possible research questions, methods, and empirical material that can increase our understanding of international politics through an analysis of its underlying social interactions and the dynamics of power therein.
In part 1 of the course, we will look at the actors and sites of diplomacy, including – but going beyond – diplomats, summits, and ministries. In part 2, we will explore different dimensions of social interaction in diplomacy and their mechanisms of power. We will ask how state power actually manifests in negotiations; how international secretariats develop power on their own; and how state officials are themselves re-socialized in international settings. In part 3, we look at the material and bodily dimensions of such interactions and their influence on diplomatic procedures. This part also includes a view on the meaning of gender in diplomacy. This is followed by a session on the production of international agreements as assemblages. The final part is dedicated to the presentation of the students’ final paper drafts.
Reading assignments/talking points: Students are asked to submit talking points on the readings of each session (1 - 1.5 pages, 1.5 linespacing, to be submitted by Tuesday midnight before the respective session). These should contain a very brief synopsis of the readings’ main questions and procedures (just a few sentences). They should further be dedicated to the student’s thoughts on the readings, such as critique, ideas for further research questions, links to current or past events, and any other related issues the student would like to discuss in class.
In-class participation: We will try to achieve the course objectives collaboratively through in-class discussion of the readings and of the presentations. Further in-class activities will be announced.
Presentations: Students are asked to make group presentations to class (max 15 min.). The following serves as a guideline for your presentations (deliberate and thoughtful deviations from this guideline are always possible):
Open with the session’s topic and – very shortly – synthesize the readings (students are expected to have read them, so remain brief here).
Distill from the readings a central theoretical perspective or methodological approach that you would like to explore, which leads you to the next point:
Provide your own short case study that illustrates the value of this perspective or method. This should be the main part of the presentation, and the bulk of your preparation will go into finding the empirical material for such a case study (in the news, history books, biographies, social media, visual media, etc.).
How would the case be differently perceived through other relevant literature of your choice?
Document your research process: where did you find your case study, what were the successful and unsuccessful attempts to find relevant material? (Over the course, we will thus learn more about how to find data).
Share ideas on possible further research questions.
Final paper: Students are asked to submit a brief abstract outlining the topic, question, procedure, and the main body of related literature (before session 10). Students will then submit a draft that will be shared with class (max. 10 pages, double-spaced, before session 13). These drafts will be presented and discussed in class.
The final paper (max. 20 pages double-spaced) has to be handed in by the end of the semester (exact date to be announced).
Grading:
- Reading assignments 20%
- Participation 15%
- Presentation 15%
- Final paper draft: 10% (written submission + presentation) - Final Paper 40%
Course Content
Part 1: Setting the stage – actors and sites of diplomacy 1) Introduction
2) Actors (1): Diplomats
[further readings to be added.]
Berridge, G. R. 2015. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Springer. Chapters: “The Foreign Ministry” and “Embassies”, pp. 5‐18 and 115‐132.
Neumann, Iver B. 2007. “‘A Speech That the Entire Ministry May Stand for,’ or: Why Diplomats Never Produce Anything New.” International Political Sociology 1 (2): 183–200.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2007.00012.x.
3) Actors (2): International Civil Servants, non‐state actors and policy networks [further readings to be added.]
Biersteker, Thomas J. 2019. “The Role of Transnational Policy Networks in Informal Governance.”
Sending, Ole Jacob. 2014. “The International Civil Servant.” International Political Sociology 8 (3): 338–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12065.
Sinclair, Guy Fiti. 2015. “The International Civil Servant in Theory and Practice: Law, Morality, and Expertise.” European Journal of International Law 26 (3): 747–66.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chv045.
4) Diplomatic Sites: Backroom diplomacy, summit diplomacy, public diplomacy
[further readings to be added.]
Duncombe, Constance. 2017. “Twitter and Transformative Diplomacy: Social Media and Iran–
US Relations.” International Affairs 93 (3): 545–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix048.
Further resources:
Bjola, Corneliu. 2016. “Digital Diplomacy – the State of the Art.” Global Affairs 2 (3): 297–99.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2016.1239372.
Manor, Ilan. 2019. The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐04405‐3.
Part 2: Interaction dynamics and power in multilateral diplomacy
5) Rituals of Diplomacy: hidden and explicit manifestations of power.
Balzacq, Thierry. 2020. “Rituals and Diplomacy.” In Global Diplomacy: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, edited by Thierry Balzacq, Frédéric Charillon, and Frédéric Ramel, 111–
22. The Sciences Po Series in International Relations and Political Economy. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28786-3_8.
Pouliot, Vincent. 2016. International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.
6) State power and micro‐struggles in diplomatic negotiations.
Adler‐Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. 2014. “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya.” European Journal of International Relations 20 (4): 889–
911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113512702.
Ralph, Jason, and Jess Gifkins. 2017. “The Purpose of United Nations Security Council Practice:
Contesting Competence Claims in the Normative Context Created by the Responsibility to Protect.” European Journal of International Relations 23 (3): 630–53.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116669652.
7) Bureaucracy: The influence of secretariats.
Jinnah, Sikina. 2014. Post‐Treaty Politics: Secretariat Influence in Global Environmental Governance. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10961903.
Kellow, Aynsley, and Peter Carroll. 2013. “Exploring the Impact of International Civil Servants:
The Case of the OECD.” International Journal of Public Administration 36 (7): 482–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.772635.
Yi‐Chong, Xu, and Patrick Weller. 2008. “‘To Be, but Not to Be Seen’: Exploring the Impact of International Civil Servants.” Public Administration 86 (1): 35–51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2007.00706.x.
8) Socialization: do diplomats change abroad?
Broome, André, and Leonard Seabrooke. 2015. “Shaping Policy Curves: Cognitive Authority in Transnational Capacity Building.” Public Administration 93 (4): 956–72.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12179.
Lewis, Jeffrey. 2005. “The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union.” International Organization 59 (4): 937–71.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050320.
Peck, Richard. 1979. “Socialization of Permanent Representatives in the United Nations: Some Evidence.” International Organization 33 (3): 365–90.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300032203.
Trondal, Jarle. 2004. “Re‐Socializing Civil Servants: The Transformative Powers of EU Institutions.” Acta Politica 39 (1): 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500045.
Part 3: Materials of diplomacy: Technology, artefacts, and bodies
9) Technology and diplomatic interaction (1): Tools of negotiation
Adler‐Nissen, Rebecca, and Alena Drieschova. 2019. “Track‐Change Diplomacy: Technology, Affordances, and the Practice of International Negotiations.” International Studies Quarterly 63 (3): 531–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz030.
Berridge, G. R. 2015. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Springer. Chapter:
“Telecommunications”, pp. 101‐111.
Dittmer, Jason. 2017. Diplomatic Material. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
10) The diplomat’s brain & body
Caldwell, Dan, and William G. Hocking. 2014. “Jet Lag: A Neglected Problem of Modern Diplomacy?” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9 (3): 281–95.
https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191X‐12341280.
Holmes, Marcus. 2014. “International Politics at the Brain’s Edge: Social Neuroscience and a New ‘Via Media.’” International Studies Perspectives 15 (2): 209–28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12012.
11) Gendered diplomats
Beteta, Hanny Cueva, Colleen Russo, and Stephanie Ziebell. 2010. Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations: Connections between Presence and Influence. New York: UN Women.
Towns, Ann E., and Karin Aggestam. 2018. Gendering Diplomacy and International Negotiation. Springer.
Daybell, James. 2011. “Gender, Politics and Diplomacy: Women, News and Intelligence Networks in Elizabethan England.” In Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox, 101–19. Early Modern Literature in History. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230298125_7.
12) Assembling international agreements
Mallard, Gregoire. 2014. Fallout. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Thérien, Jean-Philippe, and Vincent Pouliot. 2019. “Global Governance as Patchwork: The Making of the Sustainable Development Goals.” Review of International Political Economy: 1–
25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1671209.
Part 4: Student projects & Course conclusion
13) Student projects 1
14) Student projects 2 & Conclusion
