I see the most important aspect of the new diplomacy being the rise of non-state actors in the international arena and their influence on the diplomatic stage.

The rise of new states, non state actors, information communications technologies ICT and new global agendas, such as climate change, terrorism and the world economy throughout the 20th Century have all had an effect in the international arena. This has led to the involvement of non-state actors and interstate organisations in government work and they have growing influence in global public opinions.

Whereas professional state diplomats have a clear objective of representation specific to territorial states, NGO representatives aren’t bound by state but rather through common goals and shared values(1) such as fighting for human rights or community development. Many scholars disagree on whether non-state actors should become diplomatically recognised in the international arena, for example Berridge strongly argues that only states can and should have diplomatic representatives and that non-state actors can never be diplomats, believing that the system must go back to ‘traditional’ diplomacy before the profession loses legitimacy(2), an opinion that may be justifiable but unlikely to withstand the current surge in non-state power influence, one result of globalisation. Opposing Berridge’s view Cohen believes that NGOs and other non-states entities’ have “revived the medieval right of non-sovereign entities to send and receive envoys, conduct negotiations and conclude agreements”(3) . Richard Langhorne agrees that prior to the 17th Century, and traditional diplomacy, there were many types of diplomats and not just those working on behalf of the state(4), for example, religious groups, cities and sub-state units. He also suggests that as the significant rise in non-state actors is changing the international arena this will increase their diplomatic status in the future and that NGOs and other non-state actors may be given diplomatic representation and immunity statuses(5).

The use of diplomacy for governments in multilateral goals resembles that of non-state actors working together towards their common shared goals and values such as human rights and environmental goals. NGOs sharing common goals and working together can lead to what is known as the ‘snowball’ effect, as happened in Canada with the landmine treaty. NGOs rally together, increasing their influence in policy decision making. For example, prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, Greenpeace along with six other NGOs and 47 NGO specialists wrote a proposal treaty which they wanted the world leaders to agree by at the summit(6).

As state agendas, particularly their environmental and human rights agendas increasingly resemble those of NGOs, state actors and non-state actors are progressively working parallel to one another. Polylateralism, a term coined by Geoffrey Wiseman is used to explain the parallel system of communications between state actors and non-state actors in international relations(7).


(1)M Betsill & E Cohen, ‘NGO Diplomacy’, (MIT Press, MA 2008) p2
(2)G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)
(3)R Cohen, ‘Reflections on the New Global Diplomacy’ in J Melissen (ed), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice (Macmillan, 1999)
(4)R. Langhorne, ‘Diplomacy and Statecraft’, (Taylor and Francis Inc. 2005)
(5)R. Langhorne, ‘Diplomacy and Statecraft’, (Taylor and Francis Inc. 2005) p332
(6)‘A Copenhagen Climate Treaty’, Greenpeace Online, 09 June 2009, < http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/ngo-copenhagen-treaty> [Accessed 14 April 2010]
(7)Geoffrey Wiseman “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue