DEFENCE DIPLOMACY IS NOT ALWAYS DIPLOMACY: AN INQUIRY INTO A PARTLY MISLEADING CONCEPTUAL CORRELATION
DEFENCE DIPLOMACY IS NOT ALWAYS DIPLOMACY: AN INQUIRY INTO A PARTLY MISLEADING CONCEPTUAL CORRELATION

Summary/Abstract: The assumption that defence diplomacy is a form of diplomacy seems to naturally result from the composed structure of the former term, but this paper calls into question the rightness of this assumption and develops an argument against it by contrasting the concept of diplomacy with the concept of defence diplomacy. To this purpose, it is first conducted an examination of the meaning of diplomacy that is grounded on a distinction between two theoretical understandings of it and that is operated through the criteria of reliance on coercive military force. This examination makes possible the identification of the connections between diplomacy and the negotiations for establishing and maintaining a military alliance and allows for the dual instrument to be introduced as a class of instruments of foreign policy. Secondly, the meaning of defence diplomacy is analysed in relation with its objectives that fall within or outside the logic of realpolitik and in line with this division the defence diplomacy is characterised in terms of negotiations on military issues conducted with respect to international agreements. By comparing diplomacy and defence diplomacy at definitional level, the paper concludes that defence diplomacy is diplomacy only if diplomacy is defined as encompassing reliance on coercive military force and that, for the most part, defence diplomacy is not diplomacy, but a dual instrument of foreign policy if diplomacy is defined as excluding reliance on such force.

• Details
• Contents