Diplomatic practice and power

“Diplomatic practice and power” indicates three main aspects of this work: diplomatic studies, practice theory and power. The aim of the study is to contribute to the development of diplomatic studies while broadening the existing understanding of power in diplomacy. The problem of diplomacy points to generally held state-centric view in dominant IR theories which cannot incorporate the “mundane and unimportant” empirical knowledge brought by diplomatic studies. This study underlines that to operationalise the insights highlighted in diplomatic studies and to contribute to the discussions on power and diplomacy, one needs to regard diplomacy both as an analytical tool and a specific type of practice. The prevailing view of power in diplomacy is rooted in the realist tradition where diplomacy is understood as a state’s tool to convey its hard power measured in material resources. Such view is best reflected in the notion of coercive diplomacy which holds that states use diplomacy to communicate threats to influence actions of its opponents. Such understanding of power in diplomacy points to the M. Barnett’s and R. Duvall’s typology of power used in this work. It is shown that the dominant view of diplomacy and power emphasizes only one, that is coercive, out of four types of power which these authors indicate. This study shows that such notion of power in diplomacy is limited and that institutional, structural and productive power both works and is created in diplomatic practice. To incorporate mundane processes of diplomacy and analyse the power dynamics which they both reflect and create, the study relies on P. Bourdieu inspired practice theory. Practice theory discards the state-centric view in IR and starts with analysis of what happens on the ground. The dynamic view of practice along with such concepts as field of practice, habitus and competence, allows to incorporate both analytical and practical dimensions of diplomacy and study the three types of power in everyday diplomatic practices. The main insights of the study are brought by combining these insights and constructing the theoretical model for power analysis in diplomacy. Formulating multilateral diplomacy as a specific field of practice, its agents are united in their desire to implement given instruction from their represented political bodies as well as possible which is done by getting recognised as a competent agent in a specific field. The recognition of competence achieved by diplomatic practices create institutional, structural and productive power. Competence is an object of constant struggle by the agents in the field so for diplomatic practice to be recognised as such, one must have specific practical knowledge which is embodied in practice. Fields of diplomacy are objects of continuous construction and so the power relations in fields are hierarchical. Thus the three types of power are not only created by diplomatic practices but are also reflected in them. Illustrating this model with empirical cases it is shown that in practice institutional, structural and productive power overlap. The study also finds that working through constitutive social relations the distinction between structural and productive power in a specific field may vanish. Nevertheless, as socially productive discourse, productive power is unique as it oversteps a particular field where it may have been created and effects other diplomatic fields as well. By achieving the presented aims, this study contributes to the diplomatic studies development broadening the knowledge in question of power in diplomacy. It shows how institutional, structural and productive power works and is created in diplomatic practice. Additionally, by showing how micro-diplomatic processes create constitutive power that contributes to the construction of agents’ identities, interests and abilities to pursue it, the study further highlights the importance of diplomacy in international relations