Introduction
Within the process of the international system’s evolution, each predeceasing period contributed its ideas, concepts, and approaches into consecutive ones, ultimately shaping the contemporary world order. Multiple scholarly sources are aimed at researching the manifestations of international relations development throughout the history of societies, being based on the theoretical premises that allow for a comprehensive analysis of phenomena and concepts. In particular, this paper is designed to analyze Cohen’s (2001) article devoted to the investigation of international diplomacy advancement from the ancient world until today.
The analysis will be based on the theoretical toolkit provided by Buzan and Little (2000), in which the authors focus on such concepts as levels of analysis, sectors of analysis, and sources of explanation. Using this framework, one will inspect the development of diplomacy in the context of the historical development of international relations, establishing the inherent influence of past principles on contemporary international systems.
Main Types of Sources
In the context of diplomacy research, the issue of the roots of this phenomenon and its gradual change are in focus. Cohen (2001) refers to the issue of diplomacy as a complex and masterful means of international relationship-building to argue that Ancient Greece and Rome were not the birthplaces but heirs of the principles of diplomacy. Indeed, the author claims that “there is a continuous ‘Great Tradition’ of diplomacy in the ancient world stretching from the cuneiform civilizations of Mesopotamia down to Classical Greece and Rome” (Cohen, 2001, p. 23). In other words, the researcher argues that there is a continuum of development of diplomacy with the maintenance of the same core principles that remained the same through centuries and civilizations.
The author refers to multiple sources of evidence to support his argument in the analyzed article. Overall, as stated by Buzan and Little (2000), “sources of explanation refer to variables that explain behavior;” “three sources of explanation encompass most of the debate: interaction capacity, process, and structure” (p. 77). Cohen applies the International Relations Theory to engage such sources of explanation as process and interaction capacity when building his argument about the maintenance of the same principles of diplomacy throughout the history of civilizations.
Importantly, Cohen (2001) emphasizes “the idea that sovereigns could communicate and negotiate by means of surrogates, enter into binding written commitments regulating their relationships, and pass obligations down from one generation to the next” (p. 24). In this regard, with the use of seminal works of renowned historians and international relations researchers, the author applies the concept of the process to show the change of diplomacy. Moreover, the concept of interaction capacity is used to demonstrate the consistency of sovereigns’ and diplomats’ communicational exchange in the international arena.
Main Constituent Units of Systems
When discussing the systems level of analysis in the research on diplomacy, one should refer to the units in the investigated system. In particular, Cohen (2001) focuses on the international negotiation system where separate societies or communities interact. Overall, units are “entities composed of various sub-groups, organizations, communities, and many individuals, sufficiently cohesive to have actor quality, and sufficiently independent to be differentiated from others and to have standing at the higher levels” (Buzon and Little, 2000, p. 69).
Thus, the application of the concept of constituent units allows for a comprehensive structural analysis of the issue of international relations as it unfolds in the context of higher-level and lower-level systems. In the case of Cohen’s (2001) focus on the argument about the continuity of the Great Tradition in diplomacy, the use of multiple units allows for demonstrating the consistency of the negotiation and advocacy processes. Thus, the identification of the constituent units in the system is a helpful means of historical and process-based interpretation of the argument.
In such a manner, the ability to perform as an actor in the international arena is the main feature of a unit. In this regard, Cohen (2001) refers to ancient civilizations as units of the negotiating system. On a lower level, the authoritative communities of sovereigns and their advocates are also referred to as units. Furthermore, when explaining the origins of diplomacy, Cohen (2001) identifies units within the investigated system as “organized polities located far apart” between which transactions take place (p. 27). In addition, another unit within the system that the author refers to is individual negotiators, advocates, or representatives of sovereigns’ interests in the international arena.
Structural Relationships between Constituent Units
Within the institution of diplomacy perceived as a structure, the units have a structural relationship with one another. According to Buzan and Little’s (2000) toolkit, the structure is a static arrangement of units in a particular correlation to one another. Namely, “structure focuses on the principles by which units are arranged into a system, how units are differentiated from each other, and how they stand in relation to each other in terms of relative capabilities” (Buzan and Little, 2000, p. 84). Therefore, when investigating the structural relationship between the constituent units of the investigated system, one should detect the principles of their arrangement.
As described above, the system of diplomacy includes such units as civilizations, societies, authoritative communities or governments, and individual diplomats and advocates. Cohen’s (2001) article implies that the structural relationship between these units is hierarchical. Indeed, the largest unit is civilization, which embodies the organization of societies and polities across a long historical period on a particular territory. Within the civilization, a society is regarded as a smaller unit, including populations and groups united by the same territory, culture, and governance. Society emerges as the antecedent of civilization, which is why it is perceived as a lower-level unit in relation to society or polity (Cohen, 2001).
The next unit is one level lower in the structure and relates to polity or society as an integral part of it; this unit is authoritative groups or governments. This unit embodies organizations or cooperations of the representatives of power who perform as decision-makers (Cohen, 2001). Lastly, individual diplomats, negotiators, and advocates are the lowest-level units within the structure, who act as immediate performers of diplomatic duties by interacting with the representatives of other societies and polities for international collaboration.
Actors’ Interaction Capacity
Once the actors within the structure have been thoroughly identified, it is essential to analyze their interaction capacity. According to Buzan and Little (2000), interaction capacity is the extent to which a social structure might develop and the maximum outcome the units within a structure might generate. It is “the amount of transportation, communication, and organizational capability within the unit or system: how much in the way of goods and information can be moved over what distances at what speeds and costs” (Buzan and Little, 2000, p. 80). Consequently, the interaction capacity of a system predetermines the units’ interactions and the overall size of the system, as well as the dominant sectors in which the actors perform best (Buzan and Little, 2000). Thus, the interaction capacity of the actors embodies the opportunities of their duties within their structural relationships.
In the context of international diplomacy, the interaction capacity of civilizations is broad and entails a multitude of sectors within which interactions might take place. In particular, civilizations have the capacity to negotiate decision-making with other entities and polities over long distances and make long-term political and economic commitments (Cohen, 2001). Societies as actors have the capacity to interact with other actors within the same system to influence decision-makers to engage in particular diplomatic interventions and treaties.
Governments and authoritative communities have the highest level of interaction capacity due to the access to means of negotiation and international cooperation. Cohen (2001) states that the “Great Tradition consisted of a body of ideas, norms, practices, and roles governing relations between political entities, usually, but not always, sovereign authorities” (p. 23). This statement implies that the governing unit has the most influential role, which inherently refers to the high interaction capacity. Finally, individual negotiators as actors have a high capacity relevant to that of the governing units due to the representation and advocacy for the interest of the sovereigns.
Processes that Formed the Basis for Interaction
Particular processes form the ground for the abovementioned interactions in international relations. In particular, Buzan and Little (2000) refer to the process as an important source of explanation that embodies a dynamic change. Namely, a process is “a product of the dynamics of the interactions among the units in the system and the use made of the existing interaction capacity by these units” (Buzan and Little, 2000, p. 79).
In relation to interactions, processes are a larger change that enables actors’ transactions within a multitude of sectors. The processes include “war, arms racing, the balance of power, the security dilemma, security complexes, alliance, diplomacy, regimes, international organizations, trade competition, recession, liberal and mercantilist orders, and other patterns in international economic relations” (Buzan and Little, 2000, p. 79). Thus, it is essential to determine which processes were decisive for actors’ interaction in the international diplomacy system.
One of the most influential processes in the interaction between the identified units is trade and alliances. According to Cohen (2001), the establishment of mutual understanding and international collaboration was one of the essential elements of the Great Tradition of ancient diplomacy. Furthermore, cultural exchange is another process that enables actors’ interaction due to the merges of religious and literacy-related characteristics of different entities (Cohen, 2001). In addition, warfare and power distribution are another set of processes that have a significant impact on diplomacy as a way of interaction between units. In particular, “negotiating agreements for cooperation in peace and war, especially the conduct of trade and military alliance” is found to be at the core of the origins of diplomacy (Cohen, 2001, p. 25). Thus, trade, alliance, cultural interactions, and war are the processes that enable units’ interaction within the context of ancient diplomacy.
Sectors in the Article’s Focus
The processes in international relations are inherently connected with the sectors within which they unfold. In particular, sectors are the spheres of international systems that predetermine a particular framework of interactions (Buzan and Little, 2000). The researchers differentiate between “the military-political, economic, social, and environmental sectors” of international systems to “provide a comprehensive account of how international systems have evolved” (Buzan and Little, 2000, p. 11).
While referring sporadically to the environmental sector, Cohen (2001) focuses predominantly on the military-political, economic, and social sectors of international systems since they comprised the essence of diplomacy and negotiation in the ancient world. Indeed, Cohen (2001) emphasizes that the core origin of the Great Tradition that has been maintained in international diplomacy throughout the history of societies is total presentation. This concept entails “anything given by one group to another and includes material things of economic value, such as goods, wealth and property; people, such as warriors, women, and children; and communal benefits and services” (Cohen, 2001, p. 25). Thus, such basic interactions lay within the context of military-political, economic, and social sectors, which have been decisive for societies since ancient times and remain relevant today.
Conclusion
In summation, the application of the international relations analysis toolkit introduced by Buzan and Little (2000) to the article by Cohen (2001) on the continuity of ancient diplomacy principles revealed structural and process-based particularities. The author’s argument was based on the identification of the civilizations’, societies’, authoritative communities’, and individual negotiators’ interaction capacity and structural relationships within the diplomacy system. Overall, the article complies with the principles of the international relations theory by referring to the core processes and sectors where diplomacy maintains its impact from its origin in the ancient civilizations till modernity.
References
Buzan, B. and Little, R. (2000) International systems in world history: remaking the study of international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, R. (2001) ‘The great tradition: the spread of diplomacy in the ancient world’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 12(1): 23-38.