"Old" or "New" what's the difference?

According to many writers there are two distinct explanations about the relevance of the old diplomacy in a modern era. One of them explain that the end of World War II has been the turning point for a new diplomacy , and the second tend to prove that diplomacy was more in a process of evolution rather than dramatic changes. To give an opinion on it i believe that this whole debate on “old” and new” diplomacy” should be more considerate as a process of “continuity” and evolutionary rather than an important change in the expansion of diplomacy. Although new procedures and new actors are present nowadays, the same basic concept of negotiating and keeping relations between states is still relevant in the new diplomacy. Furthermore in this idea of evolutionary process, diplomacy appears to be more flexible in the last century with the revolution of technology that plays a major role in the relation between the states with the new means of communication that have facilitate their interaction. It can be absolutely wrong to say that no changes has occurs in the diplomatic system for example the presence of a resident embassies is one of the main innovation in the Europe civilisation, the open negotiation of the states, the involvement of new actors and the separate bureaucracy for foreign policy has proven that the diplomatic system has shifted but i believe that the “old” diplomacy is more a new development of the system rather than a complete change in its structure.

Source:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20097144