Ultimately,
diplomacy rests on a norm of coexistence, allowing polities “to live and let
live.” In the words of Garrett Mattingly, “unless people realize that they have
to live together, indefinitely, in spite of their differences, diplomats have
no place to stand.” Acceptance of coexistence reflects the realization on the
part of polities that they are mutually dependent to a significant degree.
Interdependence may be, and is most often, asymmetrical. Yet coexistence
implies, if not equality, at least equal rights to participate in
international intercourse.
Whereas the
specific rules of the institution of diplomacy have varied over time, reciprocity
appears to be a core normative theme running through all diplomatic
practice. Reciprocity implies that exchanges should be of roughly equivalent
values. In other words, reciprocity is meant to produce “balanced” exchanges.
Moreover, reciprocity entails contingency, insofar as actions are conditional
on responses from others.
Reciprocal behavior
returns good for good, ill for ill. The norm of reciprocity lends an amount of
predictability to diplomatic relations. While not offering exact
predictability, it makes it possible for polities to know the general range of
possible outcomes of their exchanges. The distinction between specific and
diffuse reciprocity is pertinent in this connection. Specific
reciprocity refers to “situations in which specified partners exchange items of
equivalent value in a strictly delimited sequence,” whereas in situations of
diffuse reciprocity “the definition of equivalence is less precise … and the
sequence of events is less narrowly bounded.” Diffuse reciprocity implies that
the parties do not insist on immediate and exactly equivalent reciprocation of
each and every concession, on an appropriate “quid” for every “quo.”
Buyers and sellers
of houses or cars practice specific reciprocity; families or groups of close
friends rely on diffuse reciprocity. Reciprocity in diplomatic relations falls
in between, or oscillates between the two poles. The difference between the two
types of reciprocity has to do with trust. Whereas the kind of trust that binds
families together is most often lacking in the relations between polities, the
institution of diplomacy lends a modicum of trust that distinguishes these
relations from, say, those
between buyers and sellers.
In fact, if we
posit contingency and equivalence as the two basic dimensions of
social exchange characterizing reciprocity, we can identify mixed reciprocity
patterns. A highly contingent action is a fairly immediate response to an
action taken by another, whereas a less contingent action may take place after
a longer period of time or even in advance of the other’s action. Equivalence
refers to a comparison of the perceived values of goods given and received.
Contingency and equivalence vary continuously, but if we – for analytical
purposes – treat them dichotomously, we end up with four types of reciprocity.
The practice of expelling
foreign diplomats for espionage may illustrate specific reciprocity. States
today recognize that when they expel diplomats from a foreign country, that
government is likely to respond in kind by immediately expelling an equivalent
number of their own diplomats. The anticipation of specific reciprocity
therefore often deters states from uncooperative behavior.
Compliance with the
norms and rules guiding diplomatic exchange can be seen as an instance of
diffuse reciprocity. Specific repayment is not expected from such behavior, and
mutual benefits are assumed to even out over the long term. During the Concert
of Europe era, for example, statesmen made more concessions to others than was
specifically required. Similar patterns of diffuse reciprocity can be observed
in the European Union of today.
Figure
1
Patterns of reciprocity
The mixed pattern
of reciprocity in the lower-left cell of Figure 1 occurs when actors are
concerned about short-term outcomes, but less concerned about the specific
value of individual exchanges. Consider, for example, the exchanges between the
United States and China
prior to the mutual presidential visits in 1997 and 1998. President Clinton was
pressured by Congress, which was seeking to impose sanctions against China because of its human-rights violations, to
secure a significant human-rights concession from China as a prerequisite for the
state visit. Just before Jiang Zemin’s arrival in the United States, a prominent Chinese
political prisoner was released. While one political prisoner’s freedom could
not be – and was not – considered “equal” in value to the political and
economic benefits China was likely to reap from the summit, the US
Administration was apparently sufficiently satisfied with this specific
concession to welcome the Chinese President and negotiate a wide range of
issues.
The upper-right
cell signifies a different mixed pattern, where actors are concerned about the
specific value of an individual exchange but focus on longer-term relations. An
example may be John Foster Dulles’s refusal to shake hands with Zhou Enlai at
the 1954 Geneva Conference, which was read by the Chinese as a signal of
American rejection and contempt and harmed US–Chinese relations for years to
come.
Among the
procedural rules of diplomacy, immunity has assumed prominence
throughout history. The inviolability of diplomatic agents is seen to be a prerequisite
for the establishment of stable relations between polities. “Rooted in
necessity, immunity was buttressed by religion, sanctioned by custom, and fortified
by reciprocity.” The sanctity of diplomatic messengers in the ancient world
implied inviolability and thus foreshadowed more recent notions of diplomatic
immunity.
Traditional codes
of hospitality may have contributed to the notion of according diplomatic
envoys inviolability. “The ancient Greeks and Romans considered it impious to
injure a guest, as did the Celts, the Gauls, and the Teutons.” The most
perennial and robust foundation of diplomatic immunity seems to be functional
necessity: the privileges and immunities that diplomatic envoys have enjoyed
throughout the ages have simply been seen as necessary to enable diplomats to
perform their functions.
?After-reading activities
1 Comprehension questions
1 What does
coexistence mean?
2 What does the concept
of reciprocity stand for?
3 What types of
reciprocity can be singled out? Give examples of each type.
4 What type of
reciprocity do diplomatic relations involve?
5 What are the
basic dimensions of social exchanges? Give examples of each type.
6 What is specific
reciprocity? What diplomatic actions can illustrate this concept?
7 What is diffuse
reciprocity? What is the difference between diffuse and specific reciprocity?
8 Where do patterns
of mixed reciprocity occur? Give examples.
9 What does diplomatic
immunity mean?
10 What are the
historical foundations for immunity?
Work with the
dictionary and consult the text to do tasks 2 and 3
2 Translate
words and word combinations from
English into Ukrainian and use them in
your own sentences
Coexistence; mutually;
interdependence; intercourse; reciprocity;
to imply; to entail; contingency; predictability; diffuse; quid; quo; to oscillate; modicum;
pattern; dichotomously; espionage; anticipation; imprecise; short-term; wide
range of issues; inviolability; to buttress; to foreshadow; notion; impious; perennial
3 Translate from Ukrainian into English
Рівність; випадковість, непередбачувана обставина; виганяти; шпигунство; що
не співпрацює, неузгоджений у діях; взаємна вигода; довгостроковий; "європейський концерт" (перша стійка міжнародна система сформована на Віденському
конгресі 1815 р.); поступка; наслідок; передумова; вітати, гостинно приймати; вести
переговори; дипломатичний представник; схалювати; гостинність; уповноважений
4 Complete
the sentences with words or phrases from the list
Inviolability; norm; reciprocity; Concert of Europe; equivalence;
welcome; negotiated; contingent; interdependence; espionage
1.
The postwar era, however, has seen the principle of
rotation become the _______.
2.
The government preaches the virtues of __________, cooperation
and human values.
3.
Third, certain principles which have been employed to
justify diplomatic privilege, namely the sovereignty of the sending state and __________,
have not been used to justify international privileges.
4.
Thus the development of European diplomacy can be
located in terms not so much of a theory of modernization through government
development as of the __________ nature of a states system that was
distinctive, rather than modern.
5.
This diplomacy of assertion reflected the extent to
which the Security Council represented a very public breach with any principle of
_________ between sovereign bodies.
6.
__________, much of which involved postal interception
and deciphering, was significant, not
least for spying on foreign diplomats.
7.
The peaceful (to Western publics) management of the
expansion of rival empires was an important instance of a more general process
by which the _______ ___ ______ adapted
to a range of challenges and changes.
8.
On the other hand, they cannot ________ their publics
sharing their own convictions about the notional quality of international
politics because, in the end, they think that international order depends upon
such notions being accepted.
9.
There are no big secrets to be revealed, only small
uncertainties to be __________ on a case-by-case basis.
10. The first stage,
beginning in 1804, witnessed the extension of the status of neutrality and the
protection of __________ to various riparian commissions and of
"diplomatic privileges" to some international commissions.
5 Say if the following statements are true according to the text.
1 Coexistence is
impossible without equality.
2 Reciprocity means
exchange of equivalent values.
3 Reciprocity makes
diplomatic relations more predictable.
4 Specific reciprocity implies that the parties do not
insist on immediate and exactly equivalent reciprocation of each and every
concession.
5 Equivalence means
comparison of the values of goods given and received.
6 Expelling
diplomats is the case of diffused reciprocity.
7 In European Union examples of diffuse reciprocity
can be found.
8 The sanctity of diplomatic messengers in the ancient
world was not connected with diplomatic immunity.
9 The ancient
Greeks and Romans considered it impolite to injure a guest.
10 Diplomatic
immunity is rooted in functional necessity.
Write
an essay on norms and rules in Ukrainian diplomacy. Illustrate the key notions
discussed in the text with the examples involving Ukrainian diplomats and
officials.
