The Theoretical Foundations of the Old Diplomacy Are Outdated Essay

The Theoretical Foundations of the Old Diplomacy Are Outdated - Essay Example.. Its practice dates clog to the earliest known civilizations, beginning, according to Hamilton & Langhorne (2011, p.7), when early human societies realized that it makes for much better quiescence and consistency to listen to a message rather than to eat the messenger. Political entities, even in those times, recognized the destiny to co-exist with one another, as well as to enter into unions and forge all toldiances - in defence or offensive - against common threats and perceived enemies. Early diplomatic practice, which may have begun in the ancient Near eastbound around the middle of the third millennium B.C. (Hamilton & Langhorne, 2011, p.8) provided the framework for this. The practice of diplomacy has evolved over time, with two big classifications emerging the ageing diplomacy, practiced up to the early part of the twentieth century and the recent diplomacy, which succeeded it. Theoretical Foundations of the Old Diplomacy The gradual evolution of early political entities (clans, villages, tribes, etc.) over millennia gave climb up to the birth of sovereign nation states. The need to maintain an orderly structure of international relations in order to secure the growing prosperity of the nation states, in other words, the necessity for diplomacy amidst expanding political entities with often competing interests saw the emergence in Europe of what has been loosely described as the old diplomacy. It had, according to Nicolson (1954, p.73-77), five principal features, as follows 1. Europe was conceived as the most important of all the continents. The greatest nations of Europe (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France and Britain) were regarded as the Great Powers while other nations had to wear the toga of Minor or clarified Powers No war, it was believed, could become a major global threat unless one of the five great European powers got themselves embroiled in it. Thus Europe was seen as holding the balance between war and peaceableness on a general scale. 2. The Great Powers were seen as pre-eminent over the broken Powers, having wider responsibilities, holding more tumid and sophisticated interests and possessing greater resources, whether in money or armaments. The Small Powers were ranked in order of their strategic importance and position, their value as markets or sources of raw materials and their relation to the balance of power. 3. The Great Powers arrogated to themselves the common debt instrument for exercising oversight functions in regard to the conduct of affairs between the Small Powers and the preservation of peace and amity amongst them, considering themselves invested with the authority to intervene directly and by force of arms where necessary, in disputes and disagreements between these Small Powers. 4. To secure and uphold the hegemonic structure thus put in place, there was the need to establish in every country a pr ofessional diplomatic service and an associated diplomatic corps built on a more or less identical model, with common standards of professional conduct. This made it possible for Ambassadors of motley countries to relate to each other with mutual respect and confidence, even when the nations they represented were engaged in vinegarish disputes or warfare. 5. Following from the above, the rule was also established that negotiations between states should be