Diplomacies

Abstract

This study examines the pluralization of diplomacy in contemporary world politics. It argues that diplomacy no longer operates exclusively as a state-centered activity associated with high politics but has increasingly become a private activity embedded in the sphere of international political economy. Methodologically, the study combines conceptual history, international relations theory, and extensive empirical analysis. Its principal finding is that this foundational institution of modern international relations has evolved into a plural phenomenon, practiced simultaneously by sovereign states, subnational governments, corporations, clerical actors, and even individual actors. The study therefore calls for the modernization of institutions associated with traditional state diplomacy, the reform of diplomatic education and training, and the development of regulatory frameworks governing the transnational activities of nonstate actors. Its primary contribution is to advance the adaptation of diplomatic studies, foreign ministries, and international actors to the contemporary reality of an increasingly pluralized diplomacy—or, more precisely, of diplomacies.

Resumo

Este estudo examina o processo de pluralização da diplomacia na política mundial contemporânea. Argumenta-se que a diplomacia deixou de operar exclusivamente como atividade estatal associada à alta política (high politics) e passou a constituir-se, crescentemente, também como atividade privada inserida no campo da economia política internacional. Metodologicamente, o estudo combina história conceitual, teoria das relações internacionais e ampla análise empírica. Sua principal conclusão é que essa instituição fundacional das relações internacionais modernas se transformou em um fenômeno plural, exercido simultaneamente por estados soberanos, governos subnacionais, empresas, atores clericais e até mesmo indivíduos. O estudo defende, assim, a modernização das instituições associadas à diplomacia estatal tradicional, a reformulação da formação e do treinamento diplomáticos e o desenvolvimento de marcos regulatórios voltados à atuação transnacional de atores não estatais que exercem funções típicas da diplomacia. Sua principal contribuição consiste em contribuir para a adaptação dos estudos sobre diplomacia, das chancelarias e dos atores internacionais à realidade contemporânea de uma diplomacia cada vez mais pluralizada — ou, mais precisamente, de diplomacias.

Introduction

Diplomacy occupies a singular position in the history of international relations. Few institutions have endured the systemic transformations of world politics as persistently as diplomacy. From the Italian cities of the Renaissance to the great multilateral conferences of the twentieth century, from permanent embassies to contemporary international organizations, diplomacy historically became established as an activity essentially linked to the sovereign state, to high politics, and to the administration of peace among nations. In its classical formulation, consolidated over the course of European modernity and subsequently universalized by the Westphalian international system, diplomacy was understood as an institutional instrument for the external representation of states, professionally practiced by diplomats and ambassadors on behalf of sovereign governments.

This classical understanding is particularly evident in authors such as Carl Clausewitz, Raymond Aron, and Henry Kissinger. Clausewitz’s seminal proposition that war is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means recognizes the links between the actions of generals and their soldiers and the activity of ambassadors and their diplomats, while at the same time crystallizing the intrinsically state-based nature of both endeavors. In Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations, Aron maintains the classical distinction between strategy and diplomacy as complementary manifestations of state foreign policy: strategy associated with the use of force and war; diplomacy linked to negotiation and peace. Similarly, Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy, perhaps the most influential contemporary work on the subject, continues the essentially state-centric tradition of diplomatic activity, associating it directly with the administration of international order by sovereign states and their respective professional diplomatic corps.

However, the profound economic, technological, and political transformations that occurred particularly from the 1960s and 1970s onward progressively began to challenge this classical conception. The growth of economic interdependence, the intensification of globalization, the revolution in information technologies, the strengthening of transnational actors, and the diffusion of political authority produced structural changes in the functioning of world politics. In this context, diplomacy gradually ceased to be the exclusive monopoly of sovereign states and also came to be practiced by subnational governments, transnational corporations, clerical actors, heads of government, and even individuals endowed with the capacity for transnational influence.

Against this backdrop, two central questions arise: why did diplomacy cease to operate exclusively as a state activity linked to high politics and begin to expand into the private sphere and the field of international political economy? And what consequences has this transformation produced not only for diplomatic activity, but also for the very concept of the diplomat?

The most appropriate answer is that diplomacy has undergone a profound process of pluralization, transnationalization, and functional diffusion, which has altered both the nature of diplomatic activity and the actors legitimately capable of practicing it. As a consequence, contemporary diplomacy can no longer be adequately understood in the singular. The concept of diplomacies, in the plural, proves more compatible with the contemporary operational reality of international relations.

To understand the plurality that defines present-day diplomatic activities, a theoretical-methodological framework combining three complementary dimensions is necessary. The first consists of conceptual history, the so-called Begriffsgeschichte, particularly the tradition of conceptual history developed by Reinhart Koselleck, used here to reconstruct the historical and semantic evolution of diplomacy from its modern consolidation in the Italian cities to its current contemporary pluralization. The second dimension consists of a dialogue with international relations theory, particularly with Raymond Aron, Henry Kissinger, Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and James Rosenau. The third dimension consists of the empirical analysis of transformations observed in contemporary world politics, including subnational diplomacy—or paradiplomacy—corporate diplomacy, clerical diplomacy, presidential diplomacy, and the transnational activity of super-empowered individuals.

The article also engages directly with conceptual contributions previously developed by the author over the first three decades of the twenty-first century. The first of these is Blitzdiplomatie, a concept originally developed from an analysis of the Third Reich’s foreign policy toward South America between 1939 and 1941, identifying the operational synchronization between the military strategy unleashed by Adolf Hitler on the European battlefields—the so-called Blitzkrieg—and the accelerated and synchronized actions of the German embassies in South America—a veritable lightning diplomacy unleashed by the Foreign Ministry of the Third Reich. The second is the formulation of the concept of economic paradiplomacy, subsequently reinterpreted in this article under the broader category of subnational diplomacy. Both contributions form part of a trajectory of reinterpretations of diplomatic activity, its nature, and its actors.

The principal conclusion reached is that, both in its historical and concrete dimension and in conceptual terms, diplomacy has become a phenomenon that is no longer singular and uniform, but plural and diverse, practiced simultaneously by multiple actors at different levels of world politics and economics. State diplomacy remains central, but it no longer operates in isolation. Alongside it operate subnational governments, corporations, clerical actors, heads of state directly involved in international negotiations, and individuals capable of producing transnational effects previously associated only with sovereign states. The pluralization and diversification of diplomacy also entails the pluralization and diversification of the very figure of the diplomat.

Given the plural and diverse form assumed by the diplomacies of our time, there is an evident need to update diplomatic studies, diplomatic institutions, and the professional education of the different types or shades of diplomats in light of the new dynamics of contemporary world politics. On the one hand, foreign ministries, diplomatic academies, and foreign policy formulation centers urgently need to incorporate more accurately the competencies related to international political economy, artificial intelligence, digital diplomacy, platform governance, transnational communication, and negotiation with non-state actors. On the other hand, the new diplomatic actors need to incorporate into their own professional practices, in a more developed and comprehensive manner, the competencies proper to the traditional diplomat’s profession.

The practical relevance of the reflection developed in the following pages lies precisely in providing analytical and operational resources for the adaptation of diplomatic institutions and foreign policy makers to the new forms in which contemporary diplomacy is practiced. In a context marked by the growing diffusion of political authority, the expansion of digital platforms, and the international activity of private actors, understanding the pluralization of diplomacy has become not only an academic question, but also a strategic imperative for governments, corporations, and international institutions.

Section I — Causal

From the Italian Cities to Diplomacies: The Pluralization of an Institution of World Politics

Understanding the contemporary transformations of diplomacy requires, initially, a return to the historical and conceptual origins of the phenomenon itself. Before examining why diplomacy ceased to constitute an exclusively state activity and came to be practiced by multiple actors, it is necessary to understand how diplomacy was originally conceived and institutionalized in modernity. In other words, the answer to the central problem addressed here requires a reconstruction of the historical trajectory of the concept, its meanings, and the actors with which it has been associated over time—or, in terms more closely oriented toward the academic tradition, it requires the use of the Begriffsgeschichte of German theory.

Diplomacy, understood as a permanent institution of external political representation, is a product of European modernity. Although messengers, envoys, and negotiators have existed in virtually all known civilizations, the figure of the permanent representative residing abroad emerged systematically in the city-states of the Italian Peninsula between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Venice, Florence, Milan, and the Papal States progressively began to maintain permanent representatives with other political units, creating continuous mechanisms for information gathering, negotiation, and representation.

It was in this context that the fundamental elements of modern diplomacy became consolidated: permanent representation, regular political communication, systematic production of information about the external environment, and the conduct of negotiations on behalf of a territorially defined political authority. Modern diplomacy was therefore born simultaneously as an instrument of information, negotiation, and representation.

The subsequent consolidation of the Westphalian system reinforced this state-based character of diplomacy. From the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries onward, diplomacy became progressively associated with sovereignty, territory, and the nation-state. It is no coincidence that the classical definition of diplomacy found in many contemporary dictionaries continues to emphasize the conduct of international relations by official representatives of sovereign states. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, associates diplomacy with the conduct of relations between sovereign states through institutionalized negotiation, representation, and communication.

This association between diplomacy and the state did not result merely from a conceptual choice. It reflected the very structure of world politics for centuries. In an international system composed fundamentally of sovereign states, it was natural for diplomacy to be perceived as a monopoly of national governments. During much of the modern era, the principal international actors were the states themselves. Consequently, the principal diplomats were the representatives of those states.

This view found a particularly sophisticated formulation in the classical tradition of international relations theory. Carl Clausewitz, in establishing that war constitutes the continuation of politics by other means, provided one of the intellectual foundations for understanding diplomacy and strategy as distinct manifestations of the same political reality, conducted by a single actor. In this formulation, soldiers and diplomats appear as complementary instruments of state action. Some operate through force; others through negotiation. Both, however, serve the same political objectives defined by a single actor: the state.

Raymond Aron deepened this tradition by presenting diplomacy and strategy as the two fundamental instruments of foreign policy. For Aron, diplomacy corresponded to the set of practices through which states sought to achieve their objectives without resorting to the direct use of force. Strategy, in turn, represented the potential or actual use of military force. In Aron, although operationally distinct from strategy, diplomacy remained subsumed under the same central actor: the state.

This tradition reaches one of its most influential expressions in Diplomacy, published by Henry Kissinger in 1994. The title of the work is, in itself, revealing. Diplomacy appears in the singular because it proceeds from the implicit assumption that there is a relatively homogeneous diplomacy, practiced by states and their respective diplomatic corps. Although Kissinger recognizes changes in the international distribution of power, his understanding of diplomacy remains strongly linked to the world of sovereign states and great powers.

For much of the twentieth century, the core of the perspective of Clausewitz, Aron, and Kissinger proved broadly compatible with the reality observed. Diplomacy remained largely concentrated in national foreign ministries, ministries of foreign affairs, and career diplomats. The professional diplomat constituted the principal agent of diplomatic activity, and diplomacy was conceived as an eminently state function.

However, this reality began to undergo profound changes, particularly from the second half of the twentieth century onward. The growth of international economic interdependence, the emergence of new transnational actors, the expansion of multinational corporations, the strengthening of international organizations, and the development of communication technologies progressively began to alter the foundations upon which modern diplomacy had been built.

From that point onward, diplomacy gradually began to cease being merely a state activity and also became a transnational activity. It ceased to belong exclusively to the public sphere and the domain of international politics and became equally a state and private activity, expanding into the private sphere and the domain of international political economy. The emergence of this new reality constitutes precisely the turning point that explains the shift of the concept of diplomacy from the singular to the plural. The question ceases to be merely how states conduct their international relations. It also becomes which actors perform diplomatic functions, through which mechanisms they do so, and to what extent the growing diffusion of political authority has modified the very nature of diplomatic activity.

It was in this context that the contributions of authors such as Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Thomas Risse-Kappen, and James Rosenau emerged, responsible for formulating a significant part of the theoretical framework that makes it possible to understand the contemporary pluralization of diplomacy.

From Complex Interdependence to the Diffusion of Political Authority: Historical and Conceptual Foundations

If the history of diplomacy can, for centuries, be understood as the history of the international activity of sovereign states, the second half of the twentieth century inaugurated a substantially different context. The economic, technological, and political transformations observed after the Second World War produced structural changes that progressively challenged the foundations upon which modern diplomacy had been built.

The most important of these transformations was the growth of international interdependence. The expansion of trade, investment, international finance, communications, and technological flows brought societies, markets, and governments closer together on an unprecedented scale. International relations, in a more extensive and intensive form, came to involve not only states, but also corporations, international organizations, subnational governments, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals endowed with a growing capacity for transnational influence.

It was in this context that Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye formulated the theory of complex interdependence. In opposition to the traditional view that attributed almost exclusive centrality to states and military security, the authors argued that world politics was becoming characterized by the existence of multiple channels of interaction between societies, by the reduction of hierarchy among international issues, and by the growth of economic interdependence.

Particularly relevant to the objectives of the intellectual exercise developed here is the notion of multiple channels. Keohane and Nye demonstrated that international interactions progressively ceased to occur solely between national governments and that the extent, intensity, speed, and impacts of international flows had increased under unprecedented conditions. Corporations, international organizations, subnational governments, universities, and various other actors began to establish their own cross-border relations, frequently independently of traditional diplomatic structures. Diplomatic activity and the demand for diplomatic skills and competencies thus began to expand beyond foreign ministries, in pace, scope, and volume.

In the following decade, Thomas Risse-Kappen deepened this diagnosis by arguing for the need to bring transnational relations back to the center of the analysis of international relations. In Bringing Transnational Relations Back In, the author argued that non-state actors had ceased to constitute peripheral elements of the international system and had become permanent components of its functioning.

The importance of this contribution lies in the fact that it shifts analytical attention from states to cross-border interactions. The focus ceases to be exclusively on who possesses formal sovereignty and comes to include who effectively exercises international influence. Corporations, religious groups, civil society organizations, subnational governments, and individuals become part of the universe of actors capable of producing political effects beyond their national borders.

The next step in this theoretical evolution was taken by James Rosenau. In Turbulence in World Politics, Rosenau proposed one of the most influential interpretations of the contemporary transformations of world politics. His central argument was that the international system was undergoing a process of diffusion of political authority, in which capabilities previously concentrated in sovereign states were becoming progressively shared by multiple actors.

For Rosenau, world politics was ceasing to operate exclusively within a sphere centered on governments and becoming an environment characterized by the coexistence of different centers of authority. Public and private actors began to compete for influence, resources, and decision-making capacity on a global scale. Among the most innovative elements of his analysis was the identification of the emergence of so-called super-empowered individuals, capable of producing international impacts previously associated only with states.

The combination of complex interdependence, transnational relations, and the diffusion of political authority produced profound consequences for diplomacy. International relations theory was thus constructing a solid narrative according to which diplomatic activity gradually ceased to constitute a monopoly of national foreign ministries and came to be shared by a growing universe of actors. International negotiation, external representation, mediation of interests, consensus-building, and the administration of cross-border relations came to be practiced in multiple institutional spaces.

This transformation did not mean the disappearance of state diplomacy. On the contrary, states remained central actors in world politics. What occurred was an expansion of the diplomatic universe. Alongside state diplomacy, other forms of diplomacy began to emerge, practiced by actors that had previously occupied a secondary or marginal position in the classical literature.

It is precisely in this context that the various contemporary manifestations of diplomatic pluralization become visible. Subnational governments began to develop their own international agendas. Transnational corporations began to create permanent structures of external representation. Religious institutions expanded their role in processes of providing assistance to their faithful in foreign territory and, in some cases, even in mediation and peacebuilding. Heads of state began to practice growing forms of personalist diplomacy—in parallel with and, at times, even contrary to the positions expressed by their own foreign ministries. Individuals endowed with economic, technological, and communicational resources began to influence international politics directly.

Diplomacy therefore ceased to be exclusively an activity of states and became an activity shared by a myriad of actors. It is from this structural transformation that the passage from diplomacy—in the singular—to diplomacies—in the plural—emerges.

Thus, just as the association between diplomacy and the state did not result merely from a conceptual choice—but reflected the very structure of world politics for centuries—the current association of diplomacy with other actors and channels does not result merely from theoretical-conceptual preciosity, but reflects the very structure of the new post-Cold War world order. In a world composed essentially of sovereign states, it was natural for diplomacy to be perceived as a monopoly of national governments. After all, for much of the modern era, the principal international actors were the sovereign states themselves. Nothing could be more logical, therefore, than for the principal diplomats to be the representatives of those states. However, in an international system composed of a plurality of actors and channels that perform those same foundational functions of original modern diplomacy, it is more than natural for the same phenomenon no longer to be perceived as a monopoly of the state and its actors and channels, nor to be expressed by an entry in the singular—Diplomacy. The current diversity and multiplication of actors and channels of international diplomatic flows irreversibly demands that the phenomenon now be perceived in its full extent and expressed by an entry in the plural: Diplomacies.

Conclusion of Section I — Causal

From Economic Paradiplomacy to Contemporary Diplomacies

If the literature on complex interdependence, transnational relations, and the diffusion of political authority provides the theoretical foundations that explain the pluralization of diplomacy, the empirical observation of contemporary world politics makes it possible to identify the concrete forms through which this process manifests itself. The pluralization of diplomacy does not constitute merely a theoretical hypothesis. It can be observed empirically in the emergence of new actors that have come to perform functions traditionally associated with professional diplomats and national foreign ministries.

The first of these phenomena corresponds to the international activity of subnational governments. The literature has traditionally associated this process with the concept of paradiplomacy. Since the pioneering works of Panayotis Soldatos, paradiplomacy has come to designate the international activity of non-central governments, particularly provinces, federated states, and regions endowed with some degree of political autonomy.¹²

However, the transformations observed over the past decades suggest that the understanding originally associated with the concept has become progressively insufficient. In its initial formulations, paradiplomacy was strongly linked to regionalist, autonomist, and, in some cases, separatist movements. Canadian Quebec and the Spanish Basque Country figured among the paradigmatic examples in this literature. Subnational international activity frequently appeared associated with the assertion of political identities distinct from those represented by the nation-state.

Nevertheless, empirical research subsequently conducted in different regions of the world revealed a substantially different reality. In most cases, the international activity of subnational governments was not oriented toward separatist or identity-based objectives. On the contrary, it was strongly associated with trade promotion, the attraction of foreign direct investment, the economic internationalization of territories, and the pursuit of opportunities for subnational regional development.¹³

It was in this context that the formulation of economic paradiplomacy emerged. Rather than understanding subnational international activity primarily as a political phenomenon, the new interpretation began to emphasize its predominantly economic nature. States, provinces, and municipalities began to act internationally as promoters of exports, attractors of investment, and facilitators of economic opportunities for their respective territories.¹⁴

The growth of this phenomenon can be observed in both federal and unitary systems. Brazilian states, Chinese provinces, Italian regions, Spanish autonomous communities, and local governments in different parts of the world began to create permanent structures for international engagement. External representation offices, trade missions, economic cooperation agreements, and participation in transnational networks became increasingly frequent components of subnational governmental action.

This reality suggests a growing limitation of the very concept of paradiplomacy. The prefix “para” presupposes an activity that is parallel or secondary to traditional diplomacy. In many cases, however, subnational international activity has ceased to be parallel and has become structural. For this reason, this article adopts the category of subnational diplomacy as a more appropriate formulation for describing the contemporary phenomenon.

The second major manifestation of diplomatic pluralization corresponds to corporate diplomacy. For much of modern history, corporations were perceived as objects of state diplomacy. In the contemporary world, however, large transnational corporations have come to play an active role in the formulation and implementation of their own international strategies.¹⁵

Multinational corporations negotiate directly with foreign governments, participate in international forums, influence global regulations, interact with international organizations, and maintain permanent structures dedicated to the management of institutional relations in different countries. In many cases, the professionals responsible for these functions perform activities functionally similar to those traditionally performed by diplomats.

This is not merely a matter of the internationalization of corporations. It is a matter of the diplomatization of certain corporate functions. Negotiation, representation, consensus-building, mediation of interests, and the administration of international relations have become central competencies in various contemporary corporate structures. Thus emerges what this article calls corporate diplomacy.

A third phenomenon corresponds to the revitalization of clerical diplomacy. Historically associated with the Holy See and apostolic nuncios, clerical diplomacy constitutes one of the oldest forms of international diplomatic activity. The past decades, however, have witnessed renewed prominence for religious actors in matters related to peace, conflict mediation, humanitarian assistance, and international governance.¹⁶

The pontificates of Francis and, more recently, Leo XIV illustrate this process. Issues related to wars, humanitarian crises, migration, climate change, and the protection of civilian populations have once again placed clerical diplomacy in a prominent position in various international debates. Although distinct from state diplomacy, its activity demonstrates the growing diversity of actors involved in the administration of world politics.

Alongside these transformations, one can also observe the strengthening of what this article calls personalist diplomacy. Although heads of state and government have always performed diplomatic functions, the development of communication technologies, the growing personalization of politics, the expansion of social networks, and the acceleration of decision-making processes have significantly increased their direct participation in the conduct of international relations.¹⁷

Personalist diplomacy corresponds to the modality of diplomacy practiced directly by the principal political leader of a governmental unit, in which personal attributes, subjective perceptions, individual leadership styles, interpersonal relationships, and personal judgments exert significant influence over the formulation and implementation of foreign policy.

The principal characteristic of this diplomatic modality does not reside simply in the fact that it is conducted by the head of state or government. Such a circumstance has always been present to some extent in the history of international politics. The distinctive element lies in the growing weight that personal factors have come to exert over decisions traditionally processed by the permanent bureaucratic structures of foreign ministries. The ruler’s personality, individual preferences, perceptions of other leaders, personal affinities and antipathies, and particular leadership style come to influence directly the content, pace, and methods of diplomatic action.

This transformation can be observed in political systems that are extremely different from one another. It manifests itself in presidential republics, parliamentary regimes, semi-presidential systems, monarchies, and different forms of contemporary political organization. It is, therefore, a broader phenomenon than what the literature has frequently described as presidential diplomacy.

In many cases, negotiations previously conducted by professional diplomats have come to be conducted directly by national leaders themselves. Social networks, digital platforms, instant communication, and virtual diplomacy have reduced the institutional intermediation traditionally performed by foreign ministries. As a consequence, heads of state and government have become increasingly visible protagonists of contemporary diplomatic activity.

Personalist diplomacy also reveals an important transformation in the very nature of international politics. If classical diplomacy was strongly associated with the permanent institutions of the state, contemporary diplomacy increasingly incorporates subjective elements linked to the individual characteristics of rulers. Personal trust between leaders, perceptions of credibility, empathy, ideological identification, and even psychological factors have come to exert significant influence over diplomatic decisions of high strategic relevance.

The expansion of personalist diplomacy does not eliminate traditional state diplomacy, but creates a new layer of international interaction in which the figure of the political leader assumes growing prominence. It constitutes yet another manifestation of the broader process of pluralization of diplomatic activity that characterizes contemporary world politics.

Finally, there emerges what may constitute the most innovative manifestation of diplomatic pluralization: individual diplomacy. The growth of global digital platforms, large technology corporations, and the concentration of economic resources in certain individuals has produced a historically unprecedented situation. Certain private actors have come to possess a capacity for transnational influence comparable to that previously observed only in sovereign states.¹⁸

The international activity of business leaders associated with major digital platforms illustrates this transformation. Their public statements affect financial markets, influence national political debates, interfere in regulatory discussions, and produce significant international repercussions. Although they do not hold government office, these individuals perform functions that increasingly approximate what has traditionally been associated with diplomatic activity.

Taken together, these transformations reveal a fundamental reality: contemporary diplomacy is no longer practiced exclusively by state diplomats. It has come to be practiced simultaneously by subnational governments, corporations, clerical actors, political leaders, and super-empowered individuals. The pluralization of actors has produced the pluralization of the activity. It is precisely this transformation that makes the passage from diplomacy to diplomacies intellectually legitimate.

Section II — Prescriptive

Adapting Diplomacy to a World of Diplomacies

The central challenge of contemporary diplomacy consists in adapting it to a reality in which diplomatic activity has undergone innovation and become pluralized. The diplomatic institutions inherited from the twentieth century were conceived for a world in which sovereign states occupied a broadly dominant position in international affairs. Foreign ministries, diplomatic academies, regulatory frameworks, and systems of professional training emerged in a context in which the principal diplomatic actors were national governments and their official representatives. That world has not disappeared. However, it has come to coexist with another reality, characterized by the growing participation of subnational governments, corporations, religious institutions, political leaders, and private individuals in the conduct of international affairs.

The challenge, therefore, does not consist in replacing traditional diplomacy, but in broadening the conceptual and institutional frameworks through which diplomacy is understood, taught, and practiced. A diplomatic system conceived for diplomacy in the singular increasingly operates in a world of diplomacies.

This adaptation must occur in at least three interconnected dimensions: the professional education and training of diplomats; the institutional modernization of foreign ministries and international organizations; and the development of regulatory frameworks capable of dealing with the growing international influence of non-state actors.

First, diplomatic education needs to evolve beyond the premise that diplomacy constitutes an exclusively governmental activity. Future diplomats will continue to require solid training in international law, political negotiation, international security, and foreign policy. However, they will equally need to understand international political economy, digital governance, artificial intelligence, strategic communication, corporate diplomacy, and the functioning of transnational networks. Contemporary diplomatic practice requires interaction not only with governments, but also with corporations, digital platforms, cities, universities, religious institutions, and civil society organizations.

Second, diplomatic institutions themselves need to adapt to a more plural diplomatic environment. Foreign ministries remain indispensable actors in international affairs, but they can no longer presume that they alone are responsible for managing their countries’ external relations. Effective diplomacy requires growing coordination with subnational governments, private-sector actors, technology platforms, academic institutions, and humanitarian organizations. The challenge is not one of institutional replacement, but of institutional integration.

Third, the growing international influence of non-state actors raises relevant questions related to legitimacy, transparency, responsibility, and governance. Multinational corporations, digital platforms, philanthropic organizations, and individuals endowed with global influence increasingly participate in activities capable of producing significant diplomatic consequences. However, the regulatory mechanisms intended to guide such activities remain relatively underdeveloped. As diplomacy becomes more plural, the governance of diplomatic activity will also need to become more sophisticated.

The objective of these adaptations is not to weaken state diplomacy. On the contrary, it is to strengthen its capacity to operate effectively in a transformed international environment. The diplomatic world described by Kissinger continues to be an important part of contemporary reality. It simply no longer corresponds to the totality of that reality.

The future of diplomacy will therefore depend less on defending institutional boundaries inherited from the past and more on the capacity to understand how multiple diplomatic actors can coexist, interact, compete, and cooperate in an increasingly interdependent international order. In a world of diplomacies, diplomatic practice requires not only representation and negotiation, but also coordination among the various components of an increasingly broad and complex diplomatic ecosystem.

The Education of Diplomats in a World of Diplomacies

The pluralization of diplomacy requires a revision of contemporary systems of diplomatic education. International law, international politics, diplomatic history, negotiation, economics, and languages continue to constitute the indispensable foundations of diplomats’ professional education. However, such knowledge is no longer sufficient to prepare professionals who will operate in an international environment significantly more complex, interdependent, and plural than the one that shaped the classical diplomacy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Future diplomats will continue to negotiate with foreign governments and international organizations. However, they will also need to interact regularly with multinational corporations, subnational governments, religious institutions, universities, civil society organizations, digital platforms, and private actors endowed with growing transnational influence. As a consequence, diplomatic education needs to incorporate knowledge and competencies that have traditionally remained outside the core of diplomatic curricula.

Among these areas are international political economy, digital governance, artificial intelligence, strategic communication, the analysis of transnational networks, corporate diplomacy, and subnational diplomacy. The contemporary diplomat needs to understand not only the functioning of governments and international organizations, but also the dynamics of global markets, technology platforms, and transnational flows of information, capital, and influence.

The necessary adaptation is not only thematic, but also methodological. For much of the twentieth century, diplomatic education concentrated on preparing specialists in international politics. This function remains essential. However, contemporary reality requires professionals capable of operating in environments in which politics, economics, technology, communication, and global governance are increasingly interconnected.

This transformation is not limited to state diplomatic academies. It equally extends to universities, schools of government, executive education centers, and programs aimed at professionals working in corporations, subnational governments, international organizations, and religious institutions. In a world of diplomacies, diplomatic education ceases to constitute an exclusive need of foreign ministries and comes to represent a relevant competency for different categories of international actors.

The objective of these adaptations does not consist in replacing traditional diplomatic education, but in broadening it. The challenge remains the same: to educate excellent diplomats. The difference is that these diplomats will need to operate in an international environment characterized by the coexistence of multiple diplomatic actors, multiple channels of international interaction, and multiple forms of practicing diplomacy.

Modernizing Foreign Ministries for a World of Diplomacies

The pluralization of diplomacy equally poses institutional challenges to foreign ministries and ministries of foreign affairs. For much of the modern era, these institutions were conceived as the principal centers for the formulation, coordination, and execution of the international relations of sovereign states. To a large extent, they continue to perform these functions. However, the international environment in which they operate has become significantly more complex than the one that shaped their organizational structure throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The growing international activity of subnational governments, corporations, international organizations, religious institutions, and individuals endowed with transnational influence has increased the number of actors involved in issues traditionally associated with foreign policy. As a consequence, foreign ministries have come to operate in an environment in which the management of international relations has ceased to constitute an activity performed exclusively by the central organs of the state.

This transformation requires a revision of the contemporary function of ministries of foreign affairs itself. Their relevance is not diminishing. On the contrary, it is becoming even greater. However, their function tends progressively to shift from a logic of monopoly over external representation to a logic of coordinating the international presence of the state and society.

In this new context, it becomes increasingly important to develop permanent mechanisms of coordination among foreign ministries, subnational governments, regulatory agencies, trade promotion bodies, academic institutions, strategic corporations, and civil society organizations. Foreign policy remains the responsibility of the national state. However, its implementation occurs in an environment characterized by a growing multiplicity of actors and channels of international interaction.

This process equally requires internal organizational adaptations. Issues related to the digital economy, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, the governance of technology platforms, climate change, and global value chains have come to occupy growing space on the contemporary diplomatic agenda. In many cases, such issues simultaneously cut across political, economic, technological, and regulatory dimensions, requiring forms of coordination that transcend traditional bureaucratic divisions.

The institutional modernization of foreign ministries also requires greater capacity for dialogue with non-state actors. Multinational corporations, philanthropic organizations, universities, research centers, and digital platforms exert growing influence over relevant international issues. To ignore this reality would mean limiting the capacity for understanding and action of ministries of foreign affairs themselves.

The objective of these adaptations does not consist in diluting the diplomatic authority of the state. On the contrary. The more plural the international environment becomes, the greater the need tends to be for institutions capable of coordinating interests, articulating positions, and building strategic coherence. In a world of diplomacies, the principal mission of foreign ministries ceases to be merely to represent the state abroad. It also comes to include the coordination of the growing diversity of national actors that participate in international life.

State diplomacy remains the structuring axis of contemporary international relations. However, its effectiveness will increasingly depend on its capacity to operate in an environment characterized by the coexistence of multiple diplomacies. Modernizing foreign ministries therefore means preparing them not to replace this plurality, but to lead, coordinate, and integrate it for the benefit of national interests.

Coordinating State and Non-State Diplomacies

The growth of subnational diplomacy, corporate diplomacy, clerical diplomacy, personalist diplomacy, and individual diplomacy creates an additional challenge for contemporary states: coordination. Whereas for much of the modern era most diplomatic activities were concentrated in national foreign ministries, the contemporary environment is characterized by the coexistence of multiple actors that simultaneously perform diplomatic functions.

This reality should not be interpreted as a problem in itself. On the contrary, the international activity of corporations, subnational governments, universities, religious institutions, and civil society organizations frequently expands countries’ international presence, diversifies channels of influence, and creates economic, political, and cultural opportunities that could hardly be achieved through traditional state diplomacy alone.

The challenge consists in ensuring that this plurality of initiatives produces complementarity rather than fragmentation. In an environment characterized by the existence of multiple diplomatic actors, the absence of coordination can generate duplication of efforts, conflicting messages, lost opportunities, and, in extreme cases, contradictions among different international initiatives conducted by actors belonging to the same country.

For this reason, it becomes increasingly important to develop institutional mechanisms for dialogue and coordination among the various components of the national diplomatic ecosystem. The objective should not be to subordinate non-state actors entirely to governmental structures, but to create permanent spaces for communication, information exchange, and strategic alignment.

Subnational diplomacy offers a particularly illustrative example of this need. State, provincial, and municipal governments frequently play a relevant role in attracting investment, promoting trade, and fostering international cooperation. When their initiatives are coordinated with the general objectives of national foreign policy, they tend to produce positive effects for the country as a whole. When they operate in a completely disconnected manner, they can reduce the coherence of the country’s international activity.

A similar situation can be observed in the corporate sector. Large corporations frequently maintain their own international agendas and interact directly with foreign governments, international organizations, and global economic actors. In many cases, these activities produce significant diplomatic impacts. The existence of channels of communication between the public and private sectors can enhance national capacity to identify opportunities, anticipate risks, and coordinate strategies for international engagement.

The need for coordination also extends to religious institutions, philanthropic organizations, universities, and research centers. In a world in which information, reputation, knowledge, and mobilization capacity constitute increasingly relevant strategic resources, these actors frequently contribute to countries’ international projection in ways that transcend traditional diplomacy.

The pluralization of diplomacy does not eliminate the need for coordination. In fact, it makes it even more important. The greater the number of actors involved in the conduct of international relations, the greater the need tends to be for mechanisms capable of producing strategic coherence, information sharing, and convergence of efforts.

If the principal consequence of the pluralization of diplomacy was the multiplication of diplomatic actors, the principal prescriptive consequence of this multiplication is the growing need for coordination among them. In a world of diplomacies, coordination becomes as important as representation and negotiation were for classical diplomacy.

Governance and Regulation in a World of Diplomacies

The pluralization of diplomacy produces not only challenges of education and coordination, but also challenges of governance. For much of the modern era, diplomatic activity was concentrated in state institutions subject to relatively well-defined legal frameworks. Professional diplomats acted on behalf of sovereign governments, subject to national rules, international treaties, and widely recognized diplomatic conventions. The growth of the international participation of non-state actors has made this scenario considerably more complex.

Multinational corporations, subnational governments, religious institutions, philanthropic organizations, universities, digital platforms, and individuals endowed with global influence have come to perform functions that produce significant diplomatic effects. In many cases, these actors participate directly in processes of negotiation, mediation, representation, and international articulation. However, the normative mechanisms intended to guide, supervise, or regulate such activities remain less developed than those applicable to traditional state diplomacy.

This asymmetry creates challenges related to legitimacy, transparency, responsibility, and accountability. The greater an actor’s capacity to influence international decisions, the greater the need tends to be for mechanisms that make it possible to understand the objectives, methods, and impacts of that actor’s activities. The expansion of diplomacies therefore requires growing reflection on appropriate forms of governance for an increasingly diversified diplomatic environment.

The challenge becomes particularly visible in the field of global digital platforms. Private corporations have come to control communication infrastructures used by billions of people and by governments in virtually every region of the world. Corporate decisions related to the circulation of information, content moderation, access to data, and the functioning of algorithms produce consequences that frequently transcend national borders and directly affect political and diplomatic environments.

Similar questions arise in areas such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, digital governance, transnational investment, critical technological infrastructure, and global supply chains. In all these domains, non-state actors exert growing influence over issues that were previously addressed almost exclusively by national governments.

The response to these challenges should not take the form of excessive state centralization or restrictions on the international participation of private actors. The pluralization of diplomacy constitutes an integral part of contemporary reality and produces significant benefits for innovation, international cooperation, and the circulation of knowledge. The objective of governance is not to prevent this participation, but to create conditions for it to occur in a transparent and predictable manner compatible with the fundamental principles of the international order.

This requires the gradual development of new mechanisms for dialogue, monitoring, coordination, and regulation capable of keeping pace with the transformations of world politics. Such mechanisms may take different forms in different national and international contexts. The common element, however, will be the recognition that twenty-first-century international governance can no longer be conceived exclusively around sovereign states, even though they remain its principal institutional pillars.

State diplomacy will continue to occupy a central position in the administration of international order. However, the growing presence of other actors in the diplomatic sphere makes it indispensable to improve the mechanisms intended to regulate their activities. In a world of diplomacies, governance ceases to be merely a question of relations among states and comes to involve the administration of interactions among multiple actors that share, in different ways, diplomatic functions.

Given that the principal consequence of the pluralization of diplomacy was the multiplication of diplomatic actors, and its principal institutional consequence was the need for coordination among them, its principal normative consequence is the growing need for governance. In a world of diplomacies, governing the interactions among the various diplomatic actors becomes as important as coordinating them.

Benefits and Risks of the Pluralization of Diplomacy

The pluralization of diplomacy constitutes one of the most significant transformations observed in contemporary world politics. As with other major institutional changes, its effects cannot be assessed in a unidimensional manner. The expansion of the diplomatic universe simultaneously produces benefits, challenges, opportunities, and risks. Understanding this duality is fundamental to avoiding both excessive enthusiasm and unjustified pessimism.

Among the principal benefits of diplomatic pluralization is the expansion of channels of international interaction. Governments, corporations, universities, religious institutions, civil society organizations, and individuals have come to establish their own international relations, creating a density of transnational contacts and flows without historical precedent. In many cases, this multiplication of channels increases the capacity for international cooperation, facilitates the circulation of knowledge, and expands the possibilities for solving common problems.

Pluralization also favors diplomatic innovation. Different actors frequently possess capacities, resources, and forms of action distinct from those traditionally available to states. Corporations can mobilize investment. Universities can produce specialized knowledge. Religious institutions can facilitate mediation processes. Subnational governments can bring economic opportunities closer to local realities. The diversity of actors tends to expand the repertoire of instruments available for the conduct of international relations.

Another positive consequence consists in the expansion of societies’ international presence. For much of the modern era, international engagement was heavily concentrated in central governmental structures. In the contemporary environment, different social segments participate more actively in international life, contributing to making international relations more diverse, dynamic, and connected to the economic, technological, scientific, and cultural demands of the contemporary world.

However, diplomatic pluralization also produces significant challenges. The first is the risk of fragmentation. The greater the number of actors involved in diplomatic activities, the greater the difficulty tends to be in producing strategic coherence. Different institutions may pursue different objectives, adopt divergent messages, or compete for resources and influence in increasingly complex international environments.

The expansion of diplomatic actors also increases challenges related to legitimacy and responsibility. Elected governments are subject to relatively clear mechanisms of political and institutional control. Many non-state actors, however, exert significant international influence without being subject to the same levels of transparency, oversight, or accountability. This asymmetry tends to generate growing tensions as diplomatic activity becomes more plural.

Another important risk stems from the growing concentration of power in certain private actors. Global digital platforms, large corporate conglomerates, and individuals endowed with extraordinary economic, technological, or communicational resources have come to exert unprecedented international influence. Although this influence may produce positive results, it also raises questions related to the balance between private power, the public interest, and international governance.

At the same time, pluralization opens significant opportunities. The digital economy, artificial intelligence, global knowledge networks, global cities, and new forms of transnational cooperation create unprecedented spaces for the practice of diplomacy. Countries capable of efficiently integrating their different diplomatic actors tend to expand their capacity for influence, their economic competitiveness, and their international engagement.

These opportunities coexist, however, with equally significant threats. Transnational disinformation, digital manipulation, the fragmentation of information ecosystems, technological competition among great powers, and the growing complexity of global governance can heighten tensions and make coordination among the various actors participating in international life more difficult.

The pluralization of diplomacy should be understood neither as a solution to all the challenges of world politics nor as a threat to traditional state diplomacy. It is a structural transformation that simultaneously expands possibilities and risks. As occurred at other decisive moments in international history, its outcomes will depend less on the transformation itself than on the capacity of the different actors to adapt to it.

Thus, given that the pluralization of diplomacy has expanded the instruments available for the conduct of international relations, it has also expanded the responsibilities associated with their use. In a world of diplomacies, the benefits of diversity can be fully realized only if they are accompanied by the capacity to manage its risks.

If Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy remains one of the most influential interpretations of diplomatic activity in the state-centered international system that characterized much of the twentieth century, the reality that subsequently emerged seems to require a broader category to describe the contemporary diplomatic universe. Diplomacy remains one of the central institutions of world politics. Its channels, its spheres of activity, and its protagonists, however, have become more numerous, diverse, and complex.

Twenty-first-century world politics continues to demand the old and traditional diplomacy. Increasingly, however, it also demands diplomacies.

Notes:

1. Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955).

2. Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (London: Routledge, 1982), 13–35.

3. Oxford English Dictionary, entry “Diplomacy,” Oxford University Press, accessed 2026.

4. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), 39–74.

5. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 87.

6. Raymond Aron, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 24–31.

7. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 17–29.

8. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977), 24–37.

9. Ibid., 24-37

10. Thomas Risse-Kappen, ed., Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 3–33.

11. James N. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 3–32.

12. Panayotis Soldatos, “An Explanatory Framework for the Study of Federated States as Foreign-Policy Actors,” in Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units, ed. Hans J. Michelmann and Panayotis Soldatos (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 34–53.

13. Ivo Duchacek, Daniel Latouche and Garth Stevenson, eds., Perforated Sovereignties and International Relations: Trans-Sovereign Contacts of Subnational Governments (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 1–33.

14. Nidi Bueno, Paradiplomacia Contemporânea (Brasília: Instituto de Relações Internacionais, Universidade de Brasília, 2010); Nidi Bueno, Paradiplomacia Econômica (Brasília: Editora Renascer, 2012).

15. Geoffrey Allen Pigman, Contemporary Diplomacy: Representation and Communication in a Globalized World (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010), 101–129.

16. Geoffrey Robertson, The Case of the Pope (London: Penguin Books, 2010), 27–46; Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, 2012), 41–63.

17. Rosenau, Turbulence in World Politics, 299–317.

18. Leonardo Rocha Bento, A Legião: De Volta para Casa (Maringá: Viseu, 2025).