A change is a change ... No?

The nature of diplomacy in my opinion has not really shown some major changes but still a change is a change. My opinion on this whole concept of “Old” and “New” diplomacy will be more or less based on the development that allows us to evoke an old and new diplomacy. The old diplomacy is usually considered as a bilateral, secrete, and exclusive. This traditional diplomacy was a system that exchange ambassadors and ministers as soon as two states developed an important relationship. Whereas the new diplomacy is often known as a multilateral, public and inclusive system. Some believe that in reality those two forms of diplomacy appear to be more complementary than opposed where for example the multilateral and the bilateral system take advantages of each other. There is no opposition between those two but a sort of evolution and adaptation of the diplomatic system. The change of the nature of diplomacy can be seen through numerous ideas. If we look at in terms of membership it is possible to see that there has been an expansion of the international community after the First World War. The change is also clearly seen in the actors in diplomacy. Heads of states today act direct and indirectly in foreign policy matters. The notion of secret and open diplomacy is also one of the main evolutions of the diplomacy. The old diplomacy was presented as secret parliamentary and the new as an open diplomacy.

R.P. Barston , Modern diplomacy 3rd edt (Pearson Education limited 200)

B. Hocking, Trade politics : International Domestic and regional Persepectives 2nd edt (London routledge, 2004)