DIPLOMACY, the art of conducting international negotia tions. The word is derived ultimately, through the French diplo matic, from the Greek word diploma, i.e., the duplicate or copy of an act emanating from the sovereign of which the original is retained. Diplomacy has thus been defined as "the science of ex ternal relations, which has for its basis diplomes or written acts of the sovereign." According to the New English Dictionary, the word was first used in England so late as 1796 by Burke. The need for such a term was, indeed, only then beginning to be felt ; for, though in a sense as old as history, it was only in quite modern times, even in Europe, that diplomacy developed into a uniform system, based upon generally recognized rules and di rected by a diplomatic hierarchy having a fixed international status. (See History, below.) Principles and Functions.—Though diplomacy is usually treated under the head of international law, it would perhaps be more consonant with the facts to place international law under diplomacy. The principles and rules governing the intercourse of states, defined by a succession of international lawyers, have no sanction except the consensus of the powers, established and maintained by diplomacy; in so far as they have become, by in ternational agreement, more than mere pious opinions of theorists, they are working rules, established for mutual convenience, which it is the function of diplomatists to apply. The greater mass of diplomatic work, indeed, consists in giving particular application to rules generally admitted. This presents no special difficulty, though it demands technical knowledge. The rest of the work, however, is disproportionately harder, since it consists in adjust ing disputes about matters to which the application of existing rules is doubtful, or to which they admittedly do not apply, or which stand beyond all rules as questions of high policy. In such debates, as Mr. Denys P. Myers has pointed out, the diplomatist is naturally an advocate ; his object is not justice, but the advan tage of the country he represents. In this aspect of its activities diplomacy must continue to be frank advocacy of particular inter ests, even though the dispute be heard before the high court of the League of Nations.
In the i8th century this would have been admitted without qualification. It is true that Frederick de Marselaer had declared in his Legatus (1626) that it was the function of an ambassador not only to study the interests of his sovereign, but "to work for the common peace and to study the convenience of foreign princes"; that writers like Francois de Callieres (1716) and Vattel (1756) spoke of Europe as a kind of republic which it was the function of diplomacy to preserve ; and that idealists, like the abbe de St. Pierre, had visions of the League of Nations; but in practice sovereigns regarded their dominions as so much real property, which it was the function of their "agents" to protect or to enlarge. Diplomacy thus resolved itself into a process of exalted haggling, conducted with an amazing disregard for the ordinary standards of morality, but with the most exquisite polite ness, and in accordance with ever more and more elaborate rules. Much of the outcome of these dead debates became stereotyped in the conventions of the diplomatic service ; but the spirit and methods of diplomacy have undergone a great change.
The change was due to two main causes: (1) the new sense of European solidarity, which was the outcome of the French revolu tionary wars, and found expression in the series of congresses from 1814 onward, and (2) the growth of democracy. The process of change was gradual, as was to be expected; for diplomacy is not a thing apart, as some seem to imagine, but is intimately bound up with the organic life of states ; it can only be effective if it speaks with authority; it can only speak with authority when, both in its personnel and its methods, it represents the ultimate sovereignty, whether this reside in an autocrat or in the people. With the changing constitution of states, then, there has been a constant adjustment of the methods of diplomacy. The process has, of course, not been uniform. George Canning, for instance, could appeal to public opinion in support of his foreign policy at a time when Metternich was suppressing all expressions of public opinion ; but Canning represented a parliamentary government, Metternich an autocrat. But in spite of survivals of the old spirit, the 19th century witnessed an immense advance in the ethics of diplomacy. In 1853 the comte de Garden could speak of diplomacy as deriving its principles from "the common law of the European peoples," and define it as "the art of reconciling the interests of the peoples one with another." At the close of the century The Hague Conferences revived in a more promising form the ideal of international co-operation which, in 1815, had inspired Alexander I.'s Holy Alliance.