Diplomacy and Diplomatic Protocol: &Rpxqlfdwlrq35Dqg$Gyhuwlvlqj

14 &RPXQLFDWLRQ35DQG$GYHUWLVLQJ
Diplomacy and Diplomatic Protocol
~ Lect.Ph.D Oana Iucu (Uni

versi
tyofBucharest)
Abstract: Thepresentstudyai msto observerelationshipsanddetermi ningfactorsbetweendipl
oma-
cyanddi pl
omati cprotocolasoutl
inedbyhi storicalandcontextualanalyses. Theapproachi sverydynamic,
provi dedthatconceptsareabl eto show theirrichness,antiquityandpol yvalenceatthel evelofconnota-
tions,semanti cs,grammaticalandsocialsyntax. Thef actthatthisi
nformati onisupto datedeterminesan
attitudeofappreci ati
onandastateofposi tivecontami nation.
Keywords: D iplom acy, diplom atic protocol, diplom atic cerem onial, etiquette, courtesy,
diplom atic law.
1. Diplomacy – Overview R om an m essengers were called nuntior or-

atores. The representative of the Pope in the
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ǰȱȱ
¢£ȱȱ ȱȱapocri siar.
word di pl
omacycom es from the G reek word
“diploo”,m eaning “to double”.G reeks used
ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
to hand two docum ents to m essengers:a rec-
official papers referring to international re-
ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱ
lations, contracted on the basis of m andates
symbol iaand written instructions,folded into
granted by m onarchs.O nly later,in the X IX th
two, called diploma. The current m eaning of
century, a new idea was beginning to catch
the word diplom acy was introduced later;ac-
contour, according to which diplom acy was
cordingly, in the H om eric era G reeks called
the activity that m ediated the representation
their m essengers keryx anghelosand later, in
ȱȂȱȱǯȱȱ ȱȱ
the classical era, they called them presbei s.
No. 8 ~ 2008
&RPXQLFDWLRQ35DQG$GYHUWLVLQJ 15
identify several definitions given to diplomacy, science and an art... as an art its
h“a
corresponding to different historical stages: main goal is to carry out international
h“the
science of foreign relations based negotiations, including the ability to
on diplomas or written papers granted coordinate and run political negotia-
by sovereigns” Ȯȱȱǰȱ Histoire tions, supported by full understand-
generale et raisonee de la diplomatie fran- ing” – ǯȱǰȱ Traite de droit
caise vu de la politique de la France, Paris international public,ȱǰȱŗşŘŜǯ
ȱǰȱŗŞŗŗǲ
Diplomacy is the ensemble of juridi-
h“dealing
with affairs between states
cal papers which diplomatic law relates to
through peaceful means” – Sir Ernst
adopting, dissolving or modifying juridical
Satow, A guide to diplomatic practice,
rapports. M ost of juridical papers are mu-
ǰȱŗŞśşǲ
tually developed, while the possibility for a
h“the
science of rapports and mutual unilateral act to cause bilateral effects is not
interests of states or the art to recon- ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȂȱȄ – C harles de relations.
M artens, Le guide diplomatiqueǰȱ£ǰȱ However the rapports between states
ŗŞŜŜǲ cannot develop in good circumstances, fur-
h“applied
nations law” thermore they cannot be profitable unless
h“dealing
with the foreign affairs of they occur in a certain mutually accepted
an international law subject through £ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
peaceful means, mainly through ne- partners, full rights equality, acknowledge-
gotiation” ȮȱȱȱȮȱǰȱ ment of the fact that each state entity belongs
Cours de droit diplomatique, Paris, to the international community and that its
attitude, action or lack of action affects the
ŗŞşşǲ
entire community.
h “the official activity of state represen-
tatives in foreign affairs and mainly of
2. Diplomatic protocol
diplomats run through treaties, mail-
ing and other peaceful means to reach ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱ-
goals and accomplish tasks of foreign tocol, courtesy, good manners and etiquette
policy to defend the rights and inter- represent crucial tools. They create the atmo-
ests of the respective state abroad. sphere needed in the activities of diplomatic
This is the most important means missions, in the collaboration between sover-
of conducting the foreign policy of eign partners. The protocol and the ceremo-
states” – M ic dictionar diplomatic ro- nial contribute not only to the proper foreign
man, Bucuresti, 1967; manifestation of a state but especially to the
h“activity
specific to state institu- quality of its relations to different foreign
ȱ£ȱȱȱȄ – states. Regarding this issue academic M ircea
Ludvik Dembinski, The modern law of M alita states that protocol and ceremoni-
diplomacyǰȱǰȱŗşŞŞȱǲ al “can be considered true barometers that
No. 8 ~ 2008
indicate the state of relations between coun- developing into a more accurate one, therefore
Ȅǯȱȱȱǯǯȱȱȱ it began to grant a certain diplomatic hierar-
the following point of view on the subject: chy. The diplomatic protocol and ceremonial
“In the absence of protocol communication followed the principle of equality between
between states would be much more diffi- ǯȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŞŗśȱ
cult, international relations would encounter the European powers adopted a “Ruling”
many obstacles, there would be less har- that established a priority order for chiefs
mony and more friction, even more wars”. of diplomatic missions according to the date
Diplomatic protocol and ceremonial offer the they presented their accreditation letters and
framework favorable for establishing and de- ¢ȱǰȱȱŗŞŗŞǰȱȱȱ ȱȱ
veloping correct relationships between states ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȬȬȱ
through rules unanimously accepted by the ȱȱȱȱȱ£ȱȱȱ
international community. alphabetical order of contracting countries
The emergence of the above mentioned (Harold N icholson, Arta diplomatica, Editura
type of protocol and ceremonial is rooted in politica, Bucuresti, 1966).
the transition from the practice of sending N owadays the activity of diplomatic
messengers/temporary diplomatic missions and consular missions is sustained according
ȱȱȱǻȱ¡ȱȱ ȱ to “The V ienna Convention on Diplomatic
of two ruling families from two different ȄȱǻȱŗŞ th, 1961) and to “The
states to develop closer relations or even ne- V ienna Convention on Consular Relations”
gotiating an agreement)towards establishing ǻȱŘŚ thǰȱŗşŜřǼȱȱ ȱȱȱ ȱ
permanent diplomatic representations with norms of courtesy which are widely applied
ambassadors having their residence in the in spite of the fact that they have no juridical
capital of the country in which they are ac- ǰȱ£ȱȱȱȱȱ
credited (Manciur, Emilian, Protocol institu- and maintaining an atmosphere favorable
tional,ȱȱǰȱǰȱŘŖŖřǼǯȱ to developing relationships between states
The first residential embassy, the way (Manciur, Emilian, Protocol institutional,
we understand it nowadays, was accredited ȱǰȱǰȱŘŖŖřǼǯȱ
ȱŗŚśŖȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Republic. During the years that followed this 2.1. Protocol – General description
¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
states. The chiefs of these representations The term “protocol” consists of two
were initially called “resident orators”, while words coming from ancient Greek: protos
the term ambassador – coming from Celtic meaning “first” and kollao meaning “to at-
and meaning servant – came into use later, in tach”, i.e. “something attached first”. The
the middle XV Ith century (Harold N icholson, term initially referred to the first sheet of pa-
Arta diplomatica, Editura politica, Bucuresti, per stuck on a papyrus roll containing writ-
1966). ten information on its origins. In the V Ith
century the word referred to the first page
Starting with the XV IIth century the in- of an official document which authenticated
stitution of diplomatic representation was ȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱ
No. 8 ~ 2008
of a public notary paper, the register con- These only apply to the basic meaning of the
ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ word. Thus, we can make the following state-
ȱȱȱ ȱȱ¡ǯȱ ments: “Romania and Bulgaria signed an
Eventually, in early XVIIth century protocol agreement protocol regarding the circulation
referred to “a formulary used in mailing ac- on the Danube” or “The Ministry of Education
cording to rank” (Louis Dussault, Protocolul, and Research signed a protocol with the rep-
instrument de comunicareǰȱȱ ¡ǰȱ resentatives of the didactic personnel regard-
Bucuresti, 1996). ȱǯǯǯȱȂȱ Ȅǯȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ -
used nowadays regarding norms of use in of- ing in which case it is a printed paper made
ficial activities, especially in ceremonies, rig- of questions or incomplete phrases and blank
orously established relations between public spaces filled in by the person who writes
personalities, protocolar order, the use of the document. The two meanings hint at the
symbols for countries and nations. grammatical dimension: “protocol” used as
a noun.
The term protocol has various mean-
ings, among which the following: W hen used as an adjective, “protocolar”
x an
ensemble of ceremonial rules and refers to formal customs as recommended by
practices applied to official festivities the protocol. W e will use the term as follows:
in diplomatic relations; a protocolar visit. In equal measure we may
x an
office in an institution with the say that a person is “protocolar” when very
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ£ȱȱ keen on the formality of social relationships;
protocol and ceremonial activities, the meaning in this case is somewhat deroga-
celebrations and other similar actions tory. A n important protocolar provision re-
(for instance the Protocol Service of fers to outfits mandatory to certain events,
ȱȱȱ¢Ǽǲ to the duration or positioning of those who
x a
diplomatic document which includes attend a certain event. A s a consequence, a
agreements and decisions made dur- garden party requires comfortable but at the
ing an international reunions; same time elegant garments while the Opera
x in
the business world this concept re- Ball requires a smoking or a night gown
fers to a convention or an agreement respectively.
reached as a result of negotiations be- The term protocol also refers to the orga-
tween business partners. £ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ-
lems regarding the preparation and progress
2.2. Protocol – Historical evolution of of official activities: “the Protocol Service in
the term and semantic connections ȱȱȱ¢Ȅǯȱȱȱ
protocol describes the stages of a surgical in-
W hen used as a synonym of the word tervention. In publishing, the word refers to
“document”, the term “protocol” has two conventional signs used in proof reading. In
meanings. It can be used to refer to a treaty, to informatics it is applied to the means of in-
a convention or to the report of a conference. terconnecting the systems. In psychology it
No. 8 ~ 2008
refers to conducting a test, interpreting it or is part of the larger domain of social behav-
to the elements of a therapeutic intervention. ior. This behavior often represents “an outer
ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȃȱ - ceremonial which can make someone glim-
tocol” to describe behaviors dominating af- mer but not shine” since the true brilliance
fective relationships between people or even of a human being comes from the inside and
between animals. Protocol can be defined in ȱȱȱȱǻȱ£ȱȬ Buna-
a wide sense as the totality of conduit rules cuviinta si comportamentul civilizat, Editura
which ought to be respected in society (Louis ǰȱǰȱŗşŞŞǼǯ
Dussault, Protocolul, instrument de comunicare, ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ
ȱ ¡ǰȱǰȱŗşşŜǼǯȱ have the opposite result, can defy any stan-
dard hence good taste and common sense
2.3. Protocol and etiquette (Serres, Jean, Le protocole et les usages, Editura
ȱȱȱǰȱȱ
A paper on this subject suggests that ǮȱȬǵȄǰȱǰȱŗşŜřǼǯȱ
protocol includes the following: It is a protocol rule for the president of
Ȋȱthe relation between sovereign coun- the state to moderate a meeting and not to be
ǰȱ¢ȱ£ǰȱ ȱȱ interrupted while he addresses the audience.
mentioned sovereignty is foreign or Likewise, when it comes to monarchs, wait-
domestic, domestic only or limited to ing until you are spoken to is a question of
goals pursued by the respective state; ǯȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ¡ -
Ȋȱnorms adopted in the relations to ing power; the other refers to a certain type
these countries and generally in the of behavior that ought to be respected when
field of foreign affairs; meeting someone who requires a protocolar
Ȋȱthe hierarchical rapports established treatment.
between institutions and within in- The combination of these terms is so
stitutions, rapports between decision powerful that the norms established for one
making factors and their relationships ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ
to subordinates. fact that protocol has restrictive effects. Not
applying them may result in negative conse-
Other authors restrain the meaning of quences that impinge on the entire commu-
protocol to “imperative prescriptions that nity while not applying etiquette rules has an
decide the place corresponding to each of- impact on the respective persons only. The
ficial character and the respective behavior” difference between the two terms is that pro-
(Serres, Jean, Le protocole et les usages, Editura tocol is applied to inter-institutional relations
ȱȱȱǰȱȱ while etiquette to individual rapports.
ǮȱȬǵȄǰȱǰȱŗşŜřǼǯ
The term etiquette refers to “the formal- Another aspect leading to the confusion
ism of individual relations no matter if the between terms is related to the etymology of
rapport is a hierarchical one or not (Dussault, etiquette. In the beginning of the XVth centu-
Louis – Protocolul, instrument de comunicare, ry it referred to activities in progress at the
ȱ ¡ǰȱǰȱŗşşŜǼǯȱȱ court of a sovereign which were written on
No. 8 ~ 2008
paper labels – nowadays we would use the animal kept running. Although she was in
word notebook. The term shifted from the a desperate situation no one dared to res-
meaning “happening at the court” to “how cue her because touching a queen was con-
things happen at the court”. Etiquette at the sidered a crime of lese majesty, and the ones
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ found guilty received the death punishment.
throughout history for its rigidity and multi- ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
tude of rules. the court.
The etymology of the word etiquette h French etiquette is related to the
ab originem was based on an interdiction Burgund ceremonial rather than to the
imposed in the Versailles Park by the chief Spanish one. Its most prosperous epoch start-
gardener at the court of Louis XIVth who or- ed with the decay of the Spanish etiquette.
dered that inscriptions be planted asking for ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
no trespassing on his newly planted lawns. court of Louis XIVth, the Sun K ing, but was
But as the nobles kept ignoring the message, ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ǯȱȱŗŝŞşȱ
the gardener succeeded in receiving a royal ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
decree which made these “etiquettes” man- ȱȂȱǯȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
datory. Since then the word entered the cur- contradictions in which many rules of con-
rent use as referring to a behavior according duit were abandoned and new ones adopted.
to norms. The revolution was smothered and spectacu-
lar ceremonies returned. But there still was
2.3.1. Etiquette and its extensions – a rupture caused in part by the crowning of
social,cultural,regional Napoleon, the new emperor: “When in the
most solemn moment Pope Pius VIIth lifted
h A crucial role in the development of the crown over his head and wanted to place
European society is Spanish etiquette. Its ȱȱȱȂȱȱȮȱȱȱȱȱȱ
most prosperous epoch is related to Charles predecessors had done it a thousand years
ȱȱǻŗśŖŖȬŗśśŞǼǯȱȱȱȱ ǰȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ ȱ
many other types of etiquette originates in crowning Charles the Great – at that pre-
the religious ceremonial. During Charles the cise moment Napoleon abruptly nabbed the
Ȃȱȱȱȱǰȱȱ crown and placed it on his head himself”.
and formalities encountered at the Spanish
h English etiquette played a crucial role
court had the role to prove the mightiness
in the development of European etiquette,
and richness of the king. In Spanish etiquette
incorporating all the features of Spanish and
soberness was the dominant feature which is
ȱǰȱȱȱȱ ȱ
why black and heavy velvet as well as black
distinct personality. English etiquette can be
jewelry had their unique role. Journeys re-
considered as more rigid and more direct than
quired special ceremonies. The sometimes
ȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱ
rigid provisions of this etiquette lead to tragi-
bourgeoisie started its ascension this type of
ȱǯȱȱȱȂȱȱ -
etiquette imposed in the public consciousness
most lost her life when she fell from a horse
the term “gentleman”. Nowadays English
and her foot got stuck in the iron while the
etiquette is considered the most polite form
No. 8 ~ 2008
of communication in diplomatic life and in American protocol borrowed many elements

business, not only in Great Britain but also in ȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ
all the countries which are influenced by the especially regarding hierarchies, clothing
Ȭ¡ȱȱȱ£ǯȱȱȱ and ceremonial. The American middle class
of the influence from other types of etiquette, adopted behavioral rules established by these
the English one preserved its unique charac- etiquettes.
ter and specific features which are still valid
(there is an English placement, an English Concluding remarks
breakfast and so on).
The present study aimed to observe re-
h Russian etiquette – Russia represents
lationships and determining factors between
a special chapter in the history of European
diplomacy and diplomatic protocol as out-
etiquette. The Slav culture was decisively in-
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ȱ¢ǯȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱ¢£ȱǯȱȱǰȱ
The approach was very dynamic, given that
ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ
concepts were able to show their richness,
factor in state business as well as in private
antiquity and polyvalence at the level of con-
business. On the other hand, during Peter the
notations, semantics, grammatical and social
Ȃȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ
¢¡ǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱǯ
to date may determine an attitude of appre-
h American etiquette – The development
ciation and a state of positive contamination
of rules and social contact forms in America
useful in multicultural circumstances and in
ȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱ
¡ȱȱȱȱȱ -
an entire society, the ideal figure was that of
tional backgrounds. An important contribu-
the businessman. In the Middle Ages that fig-
tion made by this study, a successful one we
ure belonged to clerks, in the classical period
hope, was the assertion that in this field no
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-
detail, gesture, state, feeling, emotion or at-
lonial empire to the trader and to the adven-
titude can be considered as vetust or outdat-
turer. The American way of life puts a great
ed. The only functional factor and criterion is
emphasis on prestige, safety and success as
constituted by the opportunity element.
observed in the typical American behavior.
REFERENCES:
ŗǯȲBonciog, Aurel, Drept diplomaticǰȱȱöȱǮȱȱ¦ȄǰȱóǰȱŘŖŖŖ
ŘǯȲDussault, Louis, Protocolul, instrument de comunicareǰȱȱ ¡ǰȱǰŗşşŜ
řǯȲGerogescu, Toma, Caraiani, Gheorghe, £öȱȱóȱȱÉȱöȱö , Editura
¢ǰȱǰȱŘŖŖŘ
ŚǯȲKissinger, Henry, öǰȱȱǰȱóǰȱŗşşş
śǯȲM alita, M ircea, öǰȱóȱóȱöǰȱȱ©ȱóȱ©ǰȱóǰȱŗşŝř
ŜǯȲM anciur, Emilian, ȱöǰȱȱǰȱóǰȱŘŖŖř
ŝǯȲM arinescu, Aurelia, ȱȱȱ©£ǰȱȱ
ǰȱòǰȱŘŖŖŘ
ŞǯȲM axim, Ioan, M anual diplomatic, ȱ©ȱòȱ©ǰȱòǰȱŗşşŝ
No. 8 ~ 2008
şǯȲNicholson, Harald, ȱ©ǰȱȱ©ǰȱóǰȱŗşŜŜ
ŗŖǯȲPârvu, Vasile, Pârvu, Cristian Dan, ôǰȱǰȱȱô , Editura U niversitaria,
ǰȱŘŖŖŗ
ŗŗǯȲSerres, Jean, Le protocole et les usagesǰȱȱȱȱȱǰȱôȱǮȱȬǵȄǰȱ
ǰȱŗşŜř
ŗŘǯȲTanasie, Petre, George, Marin, Dan Dumitru, £ôȱȱòȱȱ ǰȱȱ©ȱ
©ǰȱòǰȱŘŖŖŖ
ŗřǯȲVedinas, Verginia, Elemente de protocolǰȱȱȱ¡ǰȱòǰȱŘŖŖŖ
No. 8 ~ 2008

Diplomacy and Diplomatic Protocol: &Rpxqlfdwlrq35Dqg$Gyhuwlvlqj

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Diplomacy and Diplomatic Protocol: &Rpxqlfdwlrq35Dqg$Gyhuwlvlqj

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

14 &RPXQLFDWLRQ35DQG$GYHUWLVLQJ