Concert Diplomacy: Past, Present, Prospects
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12678 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Author | Paul W. Meerts |
Concert Diplomacy: Past, Present, Prospects
Paul W. Meerts
Netherlands Institute of International Relations, “Clingendael”
Abstract
This article analyzes the evolution of concert diplomacy in the past 370 years. It argues that negotiations bridging gaps are
vulnerable unless parties have some control over each other. As modern technology makes war more costly, concerted negoti-
ations are becoming increasingly important. This study raises questions about the future role of concert diplomacy in a global-
izing world in which states and diplomats are losing their age old hegemony in international relations while some politicians
do not shy away from deleting agreements that have already been signed and ratified. Pacta servanda sunt seems to lose
some of its significance. This contribution concludes with recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of working
together through negotiation processes in concerto, even if the concert becomes unharmonious.
Principles
Concert diplomacy can be defined as harmonized diplomatic
negotiation, where diplomatic negotiation can be regarded
as an ‘exchange of concessions and compensations in a
framework of international order accepted by sovereign
entities’(Meerts, 2015, p. 11). Harmonizing means managing
complexity, which will have positive and negative effects on
the process of give and take between the representatives of
the parties involved (Crump and Zartman, 2003). A positive
effect is the inclusion of stakeholders as well as shareholders
–that is, those countries and other concerned parties such
as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations –
that have an interest in the negotiation process at hand.
Including the relevant actors will enhance the probability
that the conference’s outcomes will be implemented. The
negative side of inclusion, however, is the ability of spoilers
among the stakeholders to prevent an outcome that is
undesirable to them, or to weaken the final agreement in
such a way that it will be harmless to their interests and
thereby ineffective for the collective whole. Yet, despite and
because its inherent challenges, concert diplomacy has a
role to play in the 21
st
century, arguably in Syria and the
Levant, in ‘Great Game’Asia around Afghanistan, in the
China Seas, and elsewhere.
Concert diplomacy can take place in long term ongoing
negotiation process, often in the framework of an intergov-
ernmental organization such as the United Nations, African
Union, Gulf Cooperation Council, Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, Organization of American States, or the Orga-
nization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Being struc-
tured and having a history of precedents as well as a
perspective of the future, these conferences form relatively
stable structures that allow for more or less successful out-
comes by protecting the processes (Meerts, 2015, p. 313).
The example of the European Union as an intergovernmen-
tal and supranational organization shows how important this
is for effective decision making. However, such organizations
have an interest in being relevant on their own merits. They
might thus give priority to their own needs, instead of those
of the community that they represent. This type of concert
diplomacy might be defined as regime concert diplomacy
(Spector and Zartman, 2003).
The second type of concert diplomacy is undertaken out-
side the framework of international organizations, which is
mostly reserved for diplomatic negotiation as an instrument
in policymaking. In cases of conflicts, where negotiation will
rather be defined as ‘war by peaceful means’, negotiations
are not embedded in an international organizational struc-
ture. Examples of this kind of concert diplomacy are the
attempts to mediate in the Middle East by ‘The Quartet’and
by the Minsk Group to mediate the Nagorny Karabakh con-
flict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In such cases, the
negotiation process will be relatively unprotected and
thereby more vulnerable to power play, without much pro-
tective counter play provided by an overarching regime.
Although unhampered by a bureaucratic structure, the pro-
cess has to be managed without organizational protection,
which makes it vulnerable to failure. Often there will be a
need for mediation (Bercovitch, 2011). The intensity of the
negotiations will be high, also because of the crisis at hand.
Concert diplomacy type II can be defined as conflict concert
diplomacy.
A third type of concert diplomacy is a mixture of type I
and II negotiations: a process of give and take that uses
regimes as well as ad hoc opportunities. It is more volatile
than type one, but less unpredictable than type two. Type III
tries to use the advantage of negotiation processes chan-
neled through international organizations with channel and
backchannel processes outside existing structures. Type
three attempts to combine security and insecurity in bar-
gaining processes in order to create some stability in free
for all processes where creative solutions could be found,
not hampered by the gridlock of the international systems.
©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12678
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue Supplement 2 . June 2019
108
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial