In international society, law and diplomacy have always been complementary and interdependent. However, lawyers and diplomats treat international affairs differently, making them the main form of international interaction. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states; It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the mediation of professional diplomats in relation to a wide range of current issues.
For most of the story, there were no formal or formal procedures for such procedures. It was generally accepted that they complied with the general principles and protocols relating to international law and justice. International law is the set of rules generally accepted and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations.
Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member does not have to comply with this type of law unless he has expressly consented to a particular practice or has entered into a diplomatic convention. interdisciplinary courses such as diplomacy and international law, you are supposed to think critically about diplomats and international context of real-life legal issues to help while applying the theory to practice some of the most important issues and to approach the faces of the world current.
Similarities and interdependence
In a sense, diplomacy and international law have grown together, inseparable the manifestations of a complex European international system in which separate centers of political and military power seek autonomy and greater relative capacities, but because it is close and necessarily activities among them. you need some ways to regulate your relationships.
Relying on the rules of the law was a way of satisfying this need; The practice of diplomatic exchange was different. Both the rule of law as well as the negotiation of diplomacy initially included a variety of political or other units, but over time the increasingly dominant “states” competing repressed because of their influence in the territory on which they were based. they declared rulers and excluded institutions except their peers. the state of the state needed to be part of the law or partner in the negotiations.
The limited nature of international law reflected the same weak construction of international society as the experimental character of diplomacy; in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, were both in the process of dismissing the suspicions of civitas founded on Christianity and natural law, international diplomacy, and a positivist conception of the society of secular states that moves the rules among themselves observe agreed upon and created and maintained such diplomatic practices and institutions that are mutually beneficial.
Stanley Hoffmann pointed out, “the size of the diplomatic field of the degree of universality of the legal system” (Hoffmann 1965: 96). The same could be said. The geographical expansion of the system and the international community of states as shown in the map of countries.
That adopted common diplomatic methods delineated the geographical area in which international law between legally equal participants worked. In addition, the scope of the subjects of international law (as opposed to the “barbarians” from outside that could be regulated by European international law, but less rights and not had) marked the scope of the Diplomat system (Gong 1984). international diplomacy The two activities were contained in an environment characterized by a variety of aspirations balanced by some partnership between them.
Nor was it inevitable in the form they eventually assumed: previous international systems developed rules other than legal ones, such as purely moral commandments; diplomatic institutions and residents are not part of the previous systems, but the fact that there are rules of any kind and there are some media and business management among these many wishes, it seems that was necessary for the kind of World that ended because it is an international European system (Wight, 1977, Bull, 2002: 122-77).
