Rethinking Sino-U.S. Rapprochement: Unconventional Forms of Diplomacy

A. Tagirova
{"title":"Rethinking Sino-U.S. Rapprochement: Unconventional Forms of Diplomacy","authors":"A. Tagirova","doi":"10.1163/18765610-28020002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Webster’s Third New International Dictionary broadly defines diplomacy as “an art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations for the attainment of mutually satisfactory terms.”1 Since very few existing definitions manage to encompass all forms of diplomatic interactions, the understanding of the term continues to change as the academic scholarship on the issue evolves. Unfortunately, the academic understanding of diplomacy often lags behind the actual practices, leaving scholars forced to “catch up” with modern day developments. Much like historians, students of political science and international relations continue to grapple with the ambiguity of the term and attempt to produce a comprehensive framework within which one can understand and study diplomacy. A majority of scholars agree that they and their colleagues should leave the traditional view on diplomacy as a nation-to-nation exchange in the past. Some even go as far as to declare the “crisis of state-led diplomacy,” in which governmental institutions are under the heavy restraint of both their bureaucratic nature and the necessity to conform with century-long traditions.2 Historical science had to travel a path similar to political science in expanding its understanding of the past and the role of diplomacy in it. Arguably, it was the most important processes of the 20th Century (two world wars, the Cold War, decolonization, the fall of the Soviet Union, and globalization,","PeriodicalId":158942,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of American-East Asian Relations","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of American-East Asian Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18765610-28020002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary broadly defines diplomacy as “an art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations for the attainment of mutually satisfactory terms.”1 Since very few existing definitions manage to encompass all forms of diplomatic interactions, the understanding of the term continues to change as the academic scholarship on the issue evolves. Unfortunately, the academic understanding of diplomacy often lags behind the actual practices, leaving scholars forced to “catch up” with modern day developments. Much like historians, students of political science and international relations continue to grapple with the ambiguity of the term and attempt to produce a comprehensive framework within which one can understand and study diplomacy. A majority of scholars agree that they and their colleagues should leave the traditional view on diplomacy as a nation-to-nation exchange in the past. Some even go as far as to declare the “crisis of state-led diplomacy,” in which governmental institutions are under the heavy restraint of both their bureaucratic nature and the necessity to conform with century-long traditions.2 Historical science had to travel a path similar to political science in expanding its understanding of the past and the role of diplomacy in it. Arguably, it was the most important processes of the 20th Century (two world wars, the Cold War, decolonization, the fall of the Soviet Union, and globalization,
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新考虑中美。和解:非传统的外交形式
《韦氏第三版新国际词典》将外交宽泛地定义为“在国家之间进行谈判以达到双方满意条件的艺术和实践”。“1由于很少有现有的定义能够涵盖所有形式的外交互动,因此对这一术语的理解随着有关这一问题的学术研究的发展而不断变化。遗憾的是,学术界对外交的理解往往落后于实际实践,学者们被迫“追赶”现代发展。就像历史学家一样,政治科学和国际关系专业的学生也在努力解决这个术语的模糊性,并试图建立一个全面的框架,在这个框架内人们可以理解和研究外交。大多数学者认为,他们和他们的同事应该放弃过去将外交视为国与国之间交流的传统观点。一些人甚至宣称“国家主导的外交危机”,在这种危机中,政府机构既受到官僚主义性质的严重约束,又必须遵守长达一个世纪的传统历史科学必须走一条与政治学相似的道路,以扩大对过去的理解以及外交在其中的作用。可以说,它是20世纪最重要的进程(两次世界大战、冷战、非殖民化、苏联解体和全球化),
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Chen Han-seng, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and Changing Ideas About the Chinese Rural Economy The Global in the Local: A Century of War, Commerce, and Technology in China, written by Xin Zhang Imperial Gateway: Colonial Taiwan and Japan’s Expansion in South China and Southeast Asia, 1895–1945, written by Seiji Shirane Line of Advantage: Japan’s Grand Strategy in the Era of Abe Shinzō, written by Michael J. Green Chiang Kai-shek’s Politics of Shame: Leadership, Legacy, and National Identity in China, written by Grace C. Huang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1