1 Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of ...
Próximas questões
Com base no mesmo assunto
Q1201773
Inglês
1 Most of the recent scholarly works on the evolution of diplomacy highlight the added complexity in which “states and other international actors communicate, negotiate and 4 otherwise interact” in the 21st century. Diplomacy has to take into account “the crazy-quilt nature of modern interdependence”. Decision-making on the international stage 7 involves what has been depicted as “two level games” or “double-edged diplomacy”. With accentuated forms of globalization the scope of diplomacy as the “engine room” of 10 International Relations has moved beyond the traditional core concerns to encompass a myriad set of issue areas. And the boundaries of participation in diplomacy — and the very 13 definition of diplomats — have broadened as well, albeit in a still contested fashion. In a variety of ways, therefore, not only its methods but also its objectives are far more expansive than 16 ever before.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the 19 stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, 22 agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an 25 open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to 28 suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with 31 domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow 34 deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
37 In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club 40 diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are 43 involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic 46 dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate 49 at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
From the third paragraph, it is correct to infer that the more complex the diplomatic scenario, the more necessary the presence of leaders is.
Yet, while the theme of complexity radiates through the pages of this book, changed circumstances and the 19 stretching of form, scope, and intensity do not only produce fragmentation but centralization in terms of purposive acts. Amid the larger debates about the diversity of principals, 22 agents, and intermediaries, the space in modern diplomacy for leadership by personalities at the apex of power has expanded. At odds with the counter-image of horizontal breadth with an 25 open-ended nature, the dynamic of 21st-century diplomacy remains highly vertically oriented and individual-centric.
To showcase this phenomenon, however, is no to 28 suggest ossification. In terms of causation, the dependence on leaders is largely a reaction to complexity. With the shift to multi-party, multi-channel, multi-issue negotiations, with 31 domestic as well as international interests and values in play, leaders are often the only actors who can cut through the complexity and make the necessary trade-offs to allow 34 deadlocks to be broken. In terms of communication and other modes of representation, bringing in leaders differentiates and elevates issues from the bureaucratic arena.
37 In terms of effect, the primacy of leaders reinforces elements of both club and network diplomacy. In its most visible manifestation via summit diplomacy, the image of club 40 diplomacy explicitly differentiates the status and role of insiders and outsiders and thus the hierarchical nature of diplomacy. Although “large teams of representatives” are 43 involved in this central form of international practice, it is the “organized performances” of leaders that possess the most salience. At the same time, though, the galvanizing or catalytic 46 dimension of leader-driven diplomacy provides new avenues and legitimation for network diplomacy, with many decisions of summits being outsourced to actors who did not participate 49 at the summit but possess the technical knowledge, institutional credibility, and resources to enhance results.
Andrew F. Cooper. The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Andrew F. Cooper and Jorge Heine. The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 36 (adapted).
In relation to the content and the vocabulary of the text, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
From the third paragraph, it is correct to infer that the more complex the diplomatic scenario, the more necessary the presence of leaders is.
Conheça nossos planos