Since the end of World War II, the global order has shifted towards finding ways to maintain stability and peace. Organizations such as the United Nations, as well as regional security and parliamentary councils, exist to provide as much opportunity and direct routes of negotiation between countries. Article 39 of the UN Charter states, “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations…” (“Charter of the United Nations”). At the same time, member states that are attacked, have the right to defend themselves. The UN charter is meant to be a deterrent as any violation of peace will face global condemnation, sanctions, and response. War is highly destructive, even when waged with modern military precision, thousands of civilians typically die while millions become refuges, as was evident in the most recent major conflicts of Syria and Ukraine. In international relations, diplomacy is encouraged and viewed as the most effective solution to prevent wars or ending existing military conflicts.
Diplomacy at its core is the act of conducting negotiations between two parties to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes and compromises. One of the key functions of diplomacy is prevention of war or violence and strengthen international relations between the involved countries. Diplomacy is the foundational factor to modern world affairs, as most of international organizations exist based on the ability of nations to collaborate and negotiate. Without the presence of diplomacy, the world would be in a constant state of war, as often occurred in ancient history before international structures and relations were developed (Williams). As the history of diplomacy and international politics progressed, various key concepts were established in international law and covenants. These include national interest, sovereignty, separation of powers, and security. Diplomacy has allowed for the establishment of embassies among countries and the participation in large conferences such as the UN Security Council.
Diplomacy is able to fulfill various functions, the primary of which is represent a nation’s interests and to conduct negotiations which identify areas of agreement and disagreement among parties to come to a common compromise and avoid conflict. Without the presence of diplomacy, parties can only assume what the interests of their adversary or neighboring country can be. Sometimes, those assumptions can be incomplete, misconstrued, or simply wrong, leading to provoking factors (“How does the U.S. Department of State engage with other countries?”). Diplomacy establishes a platform for negotiations, as described by G.R. Berridge, “can produce the advantages obtainable from the cooperative pursuit of common interests; and it is only this activity that can prevent violence from being employed to settle remaining arguments over conflicting ones” (“The Functions of Diplomacy”). It produces a platform where states can gather information and evaluate each other’s foreign policy goals and relay it back to their respective leaderships for subsequent decision making. In terms of national security and international relations, information on other states, regardless of if they are allies or adversaries, is vital for most effective and successful to national interests foreign policy.
Diplomacy can either function during peacetime for the strengthening of ties between countries and promoting political, economic, trade, and culture cooperation. However, diplomacy is arguably more useful in the context of disagreement, growing tensions, or outright conflict or its threat between nations (Ebitz). By nature, diplomacy and military force are both tools of statecraft and means that governments enact their agendas and advance their interests. Diplomacy verbally communicates the realities, which can influence nations, military action physically creates these realities. Historically, there is a thin and blurred line between diplomacy and military action (Codevilla). However, once military action begins, the question becomes if it is crafted as to bring desired peace or is it an act of senseless violence which then becomes a full-scale war.
Diplomacy can be either used to prevent conflict or in the process of conflict to end it or after it to negotiate long-term peace. Preventive diplomacy largely depends on agreements which establish geographic jurisdiction, functional responsibilities, and procedures are formulated where the parties are accountable for their responsibilities. The primary issue with preventive diplomacy is that there is virtually no mechanism to enforce it, such as evident in the context of international organizations (Grossman). There are the threats of sanctions or in cases of nuclear states, the deterrence of nuclear war, but legally there are challenges. However, preventive diplomacy at least attempts to establish some agreements and there is potential for further negotiation to prevent conflict.
Even in the context of ongoing conflict, diplomacy is necessary, and can lead to the end of military action. Unlike historic wars, conflicts in the 21st century do not have the effect of domination and capturing of massive territories but are commonly characterized by prolonged action with stalemates or partisan warfare, with some conflicts such as in Syria, lasting for years (O’Driscoll). Diplomacy outlines some demands and realities based on the situation on the ground, usually continuing negotiations that have occurred before the conflict began. This was evident with the current crisis, where Russia and Ukraine have been in a state of perpetual tensions. Pre-war negotiations known as the Minsk Agreements were not fulfilled by both sides, eventually stimulating aggression from Russia (The Editors). In the attempts to stop violence and under support of neutral parties, the governments are conducting rounds of negotiations, at the finalization of which, each committed to ending the war (Wade). The realities of the war has brought new context to diplomacy, with the parties more clearly outlining their demands and willing to potentially come together for peace.
Works Cited
“Charter of the United Nations.” Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Web.
Codevilla, Angello M. “Tools of Statecraft: Diplomacy and War.” Foreign Policy Research Institute, Web.
Ebitz, Amy. “The Use of Military Diplomacy in Great Power Competition.” Brookings, Web.
Grossman, Marc. “Diplomacy Before and After Conflict.” U.S. Army, Web.
“How does the U.S. Department of State engage with other countries?” National Museum of American Diplomacy, Web.
O’Driscoll, Cian. “The Myth of Victory in Modern Warfare.” Quartz, Web.
The Editors. “Diplomacy Can Still Prevent War in Ukraine.” The Washington Post, Web.
“The Functions of Diplomacy.” E-International Relations, Web.
Wade, Robert. “A ‘Diplomatic Solution’ to the War in Ukraine.’ Phelan US Centre, Web.
Williams, Abiodun. “The Use of Conference Diplomacy in Conflict Prevention.” The United Nations. Web.