science diplomacy essay

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 30 September 2020

Lifting the smokescreen of science diplomacy: comparing the political instrumentation of science and innovation centres

• Elisabeth Epping 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  7 , Article number:  111 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

3776 Accesses

9 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Politics and international relations
• Science, technology and society

The notion of science diplomacy (SD) has increasingly gained momentum in recent years, however, it remains an empirically largely underexplored topic. This paper contributes to the study of SD by taking an instrument-centred perspective and focusses on science and innovation centres (SIC), a novel policy instrument in the science diplomacy toolbox. SIC are distinct units or satellite institutes, established by governments abroad, operating at the nexus of higher education, research, innovation, and diplomacy. Based on a comparative analysis, this article examines the rise of SIC in Germany and Switzerland. By means of applying a policy instrumentation lens, the career and development of the two SIC is retraced and insights are generated into their political instrumentation. Doing so contributes to unfold the blackbox of what is generally labelled as SD. In-depth interviews and analysis serve as the empirical foundation of this study. Ultimately, the results of this policy instrument study uncover the similarities and differences in SIC development and reveal their political instrumentation over time. It becomes evident that the objectives linked to SIC, and hence SD, are clearly motivated by national needs. Furthermore, notions of SD are reflective of a certain Zeitgeist that is mirrored in the design of an overall, new, policy yet also marks a relabelling of long-existing practices. This study, accordingly, contributes to the knowledge base of SD as it enhances the scholarly understanding of SD instruments in terms of history, actors and political instrumentation while also offering a theoretical anchoring.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: the role of virtual agglomeration

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Introduction.

Science diplomacy (SD) is a much-discussed concept and possibly a new paradigm to public policy. It rests on the key assumption that science and diplomacy form a mutually beneficial relationship so that both elements are able to nourish and stimulate each other (The Royal Society and AAAS, 2010 ). SD considers science to be a vehicle to foreign policy goals by addressing the pre-political room in the sense of operating as a depoliticising element, and unfolding impact in different ways than traditional diplomacy Footnote 1 can (Cooper, 2013a ; Sending et al., 2011 ). Most frequently, SD is defined as (The Royal Society and AAAS, 2010 ): (1) Science in diplomacy , understood as providing scientific advice to foreign policy; (2) Diplomacy for science encompasses promoting international research and science cooperation, both strategically top-down and bottom-up approaches. A prominent example of such an endeavour is the large-scale research infrastructure like the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN); (3) Science for diplomacy assumes that science unfolds impact and operates as an element of soft power, as coined by Nye ( 2008 ), in international relations particularly in situations where diplomacy with its traditional tools, such as for instance negotiations (Constantinou and Sharp, 2016 , p. 14) has come to a hold. Soft power in relation to science for diplomacy rests on “its attractiveness and influence both as a national asset, and as a universal activity that transcends national interests” (The Royal Society and AAAS, 2010 , p. 11). Even more so, science is assumed to unfold potential as a tool of soft power, given its neutral and non-political character, that “if aligned with wider foreign policy goals […] can contribute to coalition-building and conflict resolution” (ibid. p. vi), making it an “effective agent” in international relations (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 , p. 665). Thereby, one might distinguish between SD as a set of distinct policies (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 ) and SD as a practice (Fähnrich, 2015 ; Rüffin and Schreiterer, 2017 ). A more recent, yet less prominent, definition distinguishes and aligns SD according to the focus of national activities (Gluckmann et al., 2017 , p. 3): (1) a country’s domestic needs, (2) cross-border activities and (3) towards global challenges.

While SD has received growing attention among policy makers and scholars, there are two main challenges to its current use. First, the concept of SD seems to be a moving target, a concept with loose boundaries that is increasingly used as a catch-all concept in different fields (cf. Davis and Patman, 2015 ; Kaltofen et al., 2018 ). For example, these fields include grand challenges like climate change (Milkoreit, 2015 ; Ruffini, 2018 ), arctic governance (Berkman et al., 2011 ; Goodsite et al., 2016 ) or the governance of the internet (Mansell, 2018 ). However, there is no common understanding of SD and instead it is framed by a multitude of expectations and meanings among different actor groups (Flink and Rüffin, 2019 ; Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 , p. 669) even within the same country (Flink, 2020 ). Besides this boundary challenge, a second point of concern is the lack of empirical evidence surrounding its study. The majority of contributions opt for an “explanation by naming” approach (Sending et al., 2011 , p. 534), constituting a typical pattern of new diplomacies (cf. Constantinou et al., 2016 ), however, a misleading one. The normative prospects of SD transcending national interests and mobilising soft power are simultaneously used as an explanatory element in the debate. SD is accordingly increasingly considered to serve as a silver bullet to all sorts of problems (cf. Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 ). The lack of empirical evidence leads to a rather paradox situation where the importance of science to international relations is highlighted, yet “the scientific method is rarely applied to study science diplomacy” (Smith III, 2014 , pp. 829–830). In other words, “the prevailing view that science diplomacy increases international trust and transparency rests on poor theory and weak evidence” (ibid.). Hence, the current use of SD bears signs of a conceptual overstretch and threats of it becoming a hollow concept and an empty signifier (Laclau and Mouffe, 2014 ).

Considering these backdrops, this paper empirically contributes to the study of SD by conducting a policy instrument study that is guided by the premises of policy instrumentation research. Doing so allows to accept the multitude of SD definitions while offering a theory-driven way to mitigate and handle SD’s boundary challenges. Policy instrumentation literature stresses the decisive role of policy instruments for understanding overall public policy (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 ; Saurugger, 2014 ). The article makes use of this argument and selects an instrument in practice enabling to unravel this catch-all concept. To allow for such an analysis, science and innovation centres (SIC), a novel policy instrument in the SD toolbox, are selected as they mark a distinct case on their own. SIC are an under-researched policy instrument that is considered by scholars and practitioners alike to be an innovative and unique instrument in the SD toolbox (cf. Berg, 2010 ; Epping, 2018 ; Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, 2010 ; Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 ). The article pays tribute to this novelty and aims to distil the motivations, beliefs, reasons, “the interests implicated in the choice of instruments” (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 , p. 9 drawing on Peters), in short the political rationales linked to SIC as well as its instrumentation. Uncovering the political rationales marks a logical starting point to the analysis of this new institutional form as this contributes to a much-needed understanding of SD. To specify, the normative prospects driving the SD concept are scrutinised in this study. It is argued that the spectrum of rationales linked to SIC is richer than conventionally conceived and promoted in the literature, stressing mainly soft power objectives (cf. Almeida Domingues and Ribeiro Neto, 2017 ; Turekian et al., 2015 ). An exception to this is the seminal comparative work by Flink and Schreiterer ( 2010 , p. 669) who identify three goals linked to SD strategies: access to resources in order to raise national capacities, promotion of national achievements in research and development, and influence of the public opinion.

In response, this study conducts a systematic, comparative analysis of SIC operated by two countries namely Germany and Switzerland in order to unravel its political use and hence unfold the blackbox of what is labelled as SD. This contribution is organised as follows: The next section provides conceptual clarity on key concepts and illustrates the theoretical underpinning of the paper. The “methodology: case selection and data” section explicates the methodological principles that guide this research. Section “a novel policy instrument: science and innovation centres” introduces and defines SIC as a novel policy instrument. The empirical data for the two cases are presented in sections “SIC in Germany: German Centres for Research and Innovation/Deutsche Wissenschafts- und Innovationshäuser (DWIH)” and “SIC in Switzerland: swissnex”. This is succeeded by a comparative discussion of the similarities and differences in the instruments’ development as well as its instrumentation. Ultimately, the results are discussed particularly considering the conceptual shortcomings of the SD debate.

Conceptual framework

Policy instrumentation.

The analytical perspective used in this research corresponds to a trending approach in the study of policy instruments (Capano and Howlett, 2020 ; Hood, 2007 ; Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 ; Margetts and Hood, 2016 ). While classically, the literature considered policy instruments as being merely the outcomes of policy processes (cf. Howlett, 2000 ), the approach taken in this paper marks an inversion to that thinking. The inversion lies in the assumption that policy instruments are key for an understanding of public policy as they are institutions in a sociological sense that possess distinct rules and values and hence govern interactions (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2004 , 2007 ). This understanding is also reflected in the definition of policy instruments:

“a device that is both technical and social, that organises specific social relations between the state and those it is addressed to, according to the representations and meanings it carries. It is a particular type of institution, a technical device with the generic purpose of carrying a concrete concept of the politics/society relationship and sustained by a concept of regulation” (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 , p. 4).

Assuming that instruments are social devices possessing organising functions in the sense of an institution exceeds dominant and widespread views of instruments as purely technical tools (cf. Howlett, 1991 ). Lascoumes & Le Galès move a step further and argue that instruments might develop a life on their own (for a similar argument see Voß and Simons, 2014 ) and create effects, differently from what policy makers anticipated in the first place. This is because they carry meanings, embody frames and accordingly create a certain perception of the issue (Kassim and Le Galès, 2010 ). They hence “structure or influence public policy” ( 2007 , p. 8; Saurugger, 2014 ). In line with these premises, the authors argue for policy instrumentation:

“means the set of problems posed by the choice and use of instruments […] that allow government policy to be made material and operational. Another way of formulating the issue is to say that it involves not only understanding the reasons that drive towards retaining one instrument rather than another, but also envisaging the effects produced by these choices” (2007, p. 4).

To that end, the analysis of the instrument’s constituencies, but also its application, use and development are key for analysis. Given that, in politics, it often proves easier to agree on a certain instrument rather than on objectives, focusing on policy instrumentation shall lift the “smokescreen” of objectives, i.e., political rationales that are connected to a certain instrument. This reveals the “invisible—hence depoliticised—dimensions of public policies” (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 , p. 7) and allows to point to policy change. To put it another way, it shows “what is at stake politically in a particular policy field” (Bache, 2010 , p. 59).

Empirically, applying the concept of policy instrumentation comes close to a deconstruction exercise. Policy instruments are analysed in terms of context and history because a certain longevity considering for instance governmental changes is noticeable. Hence, the analytical focus comprises the “long-term political careers of policy instruments, to analyse the debates surrounding their creation and introduction, the ways they were modified, the controversies” (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 , p. 17). To specify, instrumentation connects the development and choice of the instrument with its implementation to see how the instrument is used and understand the effects this produces. Instrumentation outputs encompass the procedural dimension in terms of “instruments, budgets, rules, norms and standards but can also be “medium and long-term in terms of (in) ability of policies to organise a policy field and influence social behaviour through conflict resolution, the allocation of resources and the imposition of sanctions” (Le Galès, 2016 , p. 518). In particular, three types of instrumentation effects can occur (Lascoumes and Le Galès, 2007 ; Lascoumes and Simard, 2011 ): (1) a ggregation effect s, in the sense that the instrument brings together heterogeneous actors that work together and requires a modification of their initial positions. This eventually leads to inertia effects (given tensions between users-actors) and makes the instrument resistant to change; (2) representation and problematisation effects: the instrument leads to a particular framing of the issue which in turn creates a direct cognitive effect and suggests a certain explanatory system; (3) appropriation effects : instruments are inextricably embedded in a particular context and hence subject to an “appropriation by actors”. Appropriation thereby refers to, for instance, offering a platform for professional mobilisations (i.e., “affirmation of new competencies”), reformulations (i.e., “serving particular interests and power relations between the actors”) or even resistance to reduce or circumvent the impact of the instrument (Lascoumes and Simard, 2011 , pp. 14–16).

Adopting a policy instrumentation approach supplements and advances classic instrument research (cf. Capano and Howlett, 2020 ; Kassim and Le Galès, 2010 ) as it stresses the uniqueness of instruments in terms of being an institution that possesses its own regularities and shapes public policy in its own way. Following the outlined intellectual paths, this research comparatively focusses on the historical development of two SIC, a valuable contribution in itself, and reconstructs as far as possible the context within which SIC emerged, the trajectory of the instrument and the debates that informed their evolution. Furthermore, the analysis will point to instrumentation effects.

Political rationales and policy-making

A crosscutting element in this research endeavour is the identification of (changing) political rationales throughout the instrument’s trajectory. Political rationales are understood as goals, motivations and reasons that are formulated by state actors such as governments and appointed officials, i.e., bureaucracies, such as ministries, implying that the state is not treated as a unitary actor in this research. To describe and analyse these objectives, though acknowledging in line with the political sociology approach to instruments that they are not static, the actor centred institutionalism (ACI) as invented by Mayntz and Scharpf ( 1995 ) offers a valuable research lens. This is because its framework and categories point the researcher to certain aspects of reality related to decision-making, particularly in terms of corporate actors such as ministries (Treib, 2015 ) while also leaving room for policy entrepreneurs (Gunn, 2017 ; Leca et al., 2009 ). ACI rests on the premises that policy decisions can be explained by looking at the interplay of the following elements: actor constellations, actor orientations and interaction patterns. Actors, both individual and collective, are considered as being intentional and aiming to maximise their interests (Treib, 2015 , p. 283). They are equipped with a basic self-interest (Scharpf, 2000 , p. 64), that is formed and influenced by the institutional context. In line with the aim to identify the political objectives that guide SIC, the focus on actor constellations and orientations, i.e., “perceptions and preferences” are relevant categories (Scharpf, 2000 , p. 51) for the subsequent analysis.

This heuristic is supplemented by concrete assumptions about governmental decision-making in line with the bureaucratic or governmental politics approach (Allison, 1968 ; Bendor and Hammond, 1992 ). The model specifies that decision-making capabilities rest with political actors, such as ministries or other units, hence transposing the idea of the state as a unitary actor with a distinct national interest. A peculiarity of the approach lies in the assumption of how decision-making takes place. Political actors, at times, favour policies that benefit their own organisation predominantly and often national interests, secondly. Accordingly, policy outcomes can be understood as bargaining exercises between governmental actors, as compromises, resulting from competition between actors possessing state responsibilities (Jones, 2010 ). In line with these assumptions, decision-making cannot be understood as strictly rational in terms of national interests. In other words, “intra- and inter-bureaucratic conflicts” are not uncommon (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003 , p. 69) and political actors within a system and ministries, cannot be considered as homogenous. Analytically this requires identifying the state actors involved in the installation and operation of SIC. Further, it cannot be assumed that their (initial) motivations related to decision-making processes are fully revealed given that policy outcomes might be the result of bargaining exercises. In addition, and in line with re-conceptualising instruments as institutions, the gradual institutionalisation of the instrument might have shaped actor perceptions and hence accounted for its development as explained in the representation effect. The methodological set up accounts for this by applying a triangulation combining the analysis of official publications and expert interviews. In combination, the ACI and the bureaucratic politics approach inform this research by offering a research lens and generating insights on the logic linked to ministerial politics and hence the formulation of political rationales. Having said so, the next section specifies the methodological architecture of this study.

Methodology: case selection and data

The study derives from a qualitative, comparative case study approach (Gupta, 2012 ; Smelser, 2003 ), beneficial for numerous reasons. To start with, a comparison facilitates a characterisation of SIC as a novel institutional form in a way that it enables an elucidation of “features of a larger class of similar phenomenon” (Gerring, 2004 , p. 341). Looking at two instances allows to gain deeper understanding of the phenomenon at hand (Heidenheimer et al., 2005 ). In addition, comparative approaches enable to establish “empirical connections between the characteristics of the system and the phenomenon under investigation” (Gupta, 2012 , p. 12). To these means, Germany and Switzerland are selected as insightful cases as they resemble similarities in terms of their federal structure, their strong and renowned higher education and science system and their ranking as being highly innovative countries. Further, both countries have been operating SIC for several years, i.e., 19 years and 10 years, respectively, allowing for an analysis of the development of the instrument and hence policy instrumentation. However, the SIC differ regarding the core topics and themes, the governance structure and the funding model as will become evident in the following.

For this research, two types of data sources are sampled: (1) 20 publicly available policy documents, such as governmental strategies, annual reports, in addition to two speeches. To supplement these and allow for triangulation (Flick, 2011 ), (2) 13 semi-structured expert interviews and several oral communications resting on narrative elements (Helfferich, 2011 ) enlighten this study Footnote 2 . The interview partners in Germany and Switzerland were purposively selected and include current and former state officials involved with SIC and key stakeholders from research and science organisations. The latter group is included for contextualisation and triangulation reasons and given the fact that in the case of Germany, the SIC’s installation phase largely misses publicly available documentation. Most interviews (40–95 min each) were conducted face to face, while also a few took place via the phone. Combined, these two sources inform the history and development of the instrument as laid out previously and allow for triangulation. A thematic analysis of these sources was conducted to distil the leading political rationales (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ; Gioia et al., 2013 ). On the side of limitations, constraints of document analysis such as availability, completeness, and quality are acknowledged (Bowen, 2009 ; Rapley and Rees, 2018 ) while also limitations of interview methodology apply (Flick, 2018 ; Helfferich, 2011 ).

A novel policy instrument: science and innovation centres

Science and innovation centres are a unique policy instrument, which was increasingly adopted by innovative countries over the course of the past two decades. Among these countries are for instance Denmark (Innovation Center Danish), Germany (German Centres for Research and Innovation), the United Kingdom (Science and Innovation Network) and Switzerland (swissnex), scoring high in the Global Innovation Index (Cornell University et al., 2018 ). The exact national SIC expressions differ in a wide range of dimensions, such as their tasks, thematic focus (business entry, higher education, research cooperation etc.), organisational setup and governance structure. In addition, differences relate to the funding model (partly /fully government funded vs. public-private partnerships), the form of its presence abroad (housed by consulate/embassy vs. own office) and, according to Berg, to the type of staff that works in SIC, i.e., diplomatic vs. seconded vs. recruited staff ( 2010 , pp. 69–70). SIC are also referred to as science diplomacy networks (Berg, 2010 ) or science and innovation diplomacy agencies (Rüffin, 2018 ). This study, however, deliberately advocates the use of the term SIC for three reasons: it allows for a stronger content-driven labelling, unties the instrument from immediate (science) diplomacy notions while not neglecting these, and offers a description that is closer to the original names in the different countries (which do not render immediate notions of diplomacy).

For several reasons, SIC constitute a notable policy instrument (cf. Epping, 2018 ) Footnote 3 . To start with, SIC typically have the promotion of national higher education, research and innovation systems in a holistic way at their hearts (cf. Fetscherin and Marmier, 2010 ). As such they are located abroad and work as a one-stop solution agency representing a streamlined coverage of their national ecosystem. This development is novel given that in most countries, international presences of respective national actors have been scattered, so far. Owing to their integrated approach, SIC bring added value to the visibility of the national higher education, research, and innovation system, while also enabling individual actors/institutions to gain from this new visibility. Among their tasks are, for instance, to provide expertise to higher education and research institutions, to find partners abroad or set up cooperation programmes, thereby responding to global collaboration trends (Powell, 2018 , 2020 ). As SIC are typically well connected with both the host and the national system, they possess valuable expertise and experience that is key for operating abroad. Furthermore, SIC often have access to or maintain a certain infrastructure abroad such as own premises, mailing lists, ideally a good reputation and an established local network of researchers, policy makers, expats etc. These resources can easily be accessed by pertinent national actors of the education, science and innovation ecosystem in relation to their own activities abroad and responding to calls for internationalisation (cf. Altbach et al., 2009 ; Carlsson, 2006 ; Edler and Fagerberg, 2017 ; Wit et al., 2015 ). SIC function as a low threshold platform to those actors wishing to launch certain (internationalisation) activities.

All SIC are closely linked to ministries of foreign affairs and tied to the national diplomacy umbrella by varying degrees (cf. Berg, 2010 ). The most obvious link concerns the financial and administrative responsibility: SIC are under the auspices of the ministries of foreign affairs, though conjointly with sectoral ministries. The Swiss SIC for instance is part of Switzerland’s external diplomatic representation, reflecting the decisive role of SIC to foreign policy. Also, the SIC’s CEOs often hold diplomatic status as in the cases of Denmark and Switzerland. Finally, SIC might be physically linked to diplomacy as they often share their address with consulates or embassies underlining the close links. This organisational setup is noteworthy as internationalisation activities have traditionally been the responsibility of the respective sectoral ministry. While admittedly the promotion of national interests is the ministry of foreign affairs’ core task, this explicit promotion of higher education and research, as in the case of SIC, marks a novelty and nourishes the SD paradigm.

A final distinct element is their networking function (cf. Berg, 2010 ). SIC aim to connect scientific communities of the host and home country by, for example, offering lecture series on current topics, or hosting academic and informative events for scientific communities. SIC also themselves operate in a network structure as countries typically run more than one SIC across the globe. Among the destinations are key tech hubs like New York and San Francisco (United States), but SIC are also in emerging markets like the BRICS Footnote 4 countries. Given all the characteristics outlined above the author parsimoniously defines SIC as: distinct units or satellite institutes, established by governments abroad, operating at the nexus of higher education, research, innovation, and diplomacy. Thereby, SIC typically operate in a network structure.

SIC in Germany: German Centres for Research and Innovation/Deutsche Wissenschafts- und Innovationshäuser (DWIH)

Dwih in short.

In 2009, the Deutsche Wissenschafts- und Innovationshäuser were launched within the framework of the research and academic relations policy Footnote 5 (RARP) (Auswärtiges Amt, 2009b , p. 11), though their actual operations started in the subsequent three years. In total, five DWIH were opened in, Sao Paulo (Brazil), New Delhi (India), Tokyo (Japan), Moscow (Russia) and New York (United States). A sixth location of the network was Cairo (Egypt), though not officially labelled (and viewed by all stakeholders) as a DWIH. In the end of 2016, the Cairo location was closed following the results of an external evaluation. The current network is composed of the previously mentioned five locations aiming to “increase the visibility of German innovation leaders around the world […] raise awareness of the German science, research and innovation landscape, advise scientists in Germany and the host countries, and connect actors at the local level” (DWIH-Netzwerk, 2019 ). The DWIH shall represent the German science and research system in close cooperation with key stakeholders known as the Alliance of Science Organisations Footnote 6 , but also several industry and business representatives. Politically, the DWIH are situated in the foreign affairs realm, while the overall management responsibility and coordination is in the hands of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), an intermediary organisation of the Federal Foreign Office (FFO) and a quasi-policy maker (see Table 1 ). Historically, the FFO relies strongly on intermediary organisations when it comes to the management of its programmes (Harnischfeger, 2007 ). All five locations are overseen and steered by central governing bodies involving the key stakeholders. The DWIH are institutionally funded by the FFO accounting for approximately 2.5 million € for all five locations.

The development of the instrument

The development of the DWIH reveals two distinct phases: (1) the conceptualisation phase and early days surrounding the opening of the DWIH (2008–2016), and (2) the time after the reorganisation in 2017 until today.

Phase 1: the early struggles

The DWIH were launched publicly in 2009 at a jointly organised conference of the FFO and the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), signalling the start of a new line in foreign policy: research and academic relations policy (Auswärtiges Amt, 2009a ). The RARP aimed to support international networking exercises and promote Germany’s strong science and innovation system abroad (Auswärtiges Amt, 2009b ). To that end, around 43 million Euros were made available by the FFO (Auswärtiges Amt, 2009b ; Deutscher Bundestag, 2010 ) Footnote 7 . The debate surrounding the creation of the DWIH or a joint representation abroad of Germany’s research ecosystem in general, started however earlier (cf. Steinmeier, 2008 , 2009 ) and seemed to be triggered and decisively influenced by the ideas of a few individuals, policy entrepreneurs (cf. Schütte, 2006 ). Even more so, the installation of DWIH is directly linked to the rise of SD discussions (Schütte, 2006 , 2008 , GIS2) and was inspired by developments in other countries, among which Switzerland (GIS2, SIS4). Around early 2008, the FFO approached key science and research stakeholders with the idea to develop DWIH. While in principal being an instrument that would benefit the ecosystem, this phase did not occur without friction and sources reveal that the design of the DWIH marked a tug-of-war, on different levels, between the actors involved (Borgwardt, 2009 ; GIS2, GIW5, GIW6, GIW8).

First, disagreement existed between the participating ministries, FFO and the sectoral ministry BMBF (having been led by different parties at the time). The BMBF was irritated and upset by the political push of the FFO to launch the RARP (GIS2, GIW6). Although they officially participated in the early deliberations the FFO had initiated (Steinmeier, 2008 ), the BMBF considered the DWIH as belonging to their policy domain, rather than the FFO’s. Key stakeholders perceived this tension as omnipresent throughout the development and considered themselves to be a cue ball in the ministerial battle (GIW6). On a second level, struggles between the research and science organisations and the FFO became evident. The discussions circulated around the tasks and the exact model of the DWIH. Sources reveal that the parties involved had partially opposing views regarding these points and reaching agreement was not always easy (GIS2, GIW5, GIW8). To illustrate, among the initial ideas was to open a DWIH in Beijing, China. That option was, however, dropped soon given that the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), a strong stakeholder, did not agree on doing so as the Beijing office constituted a symbolic and special case for the DFG (Borgwardt, 2009 ). This is only one of many examples reflecting how actors’ preferences impacted the gradual institutionalisation of the DWIH. A common, persisting, fear among stakeholders was the potential loss of visibility as a distinct individual actor. Actors did not want to be subsumed under the DWIH label solely or the diplomatic umbrella in general (GIW5, GIW6, GIW8). Third, there was disagreement, possibly mistrust, between the organisations themselves particularly visible in relation to the question of governance: i.e., who should oversee and govern the DWIH. Initial proposals suggested the DAAD to be in charge, however this did not resonate in overall approval (GIS2, GIW5, GIW8) and was hence discarded in favour of a model placing the leadership of the DWIH in the hands of consortia of the key stakeholders. At the end of these negotiations the institutional structure of the DWIH had been formalised.

Politically, the DWIH were considered a hallmark of the RARP that should strategically contribute (1) to showcase Germany as an innovative country and promote German know-how abroad, (2) to facilitate networking between German and international researchers and (3) to operate as a point of contact and information for both national and international actors (Steinmeier, 2009 ). Given that Germany is scarce on natural resources, investing in education, research, and innovation was considered particularly relevant for securing Germany’s position in the future (GIS1, GIS2, Ammon, 2009 ). From the start, the DWIH were designed as an integral component of foreign policy and even conceived as a new twist given its focus on building bridges and fostering peace (Steinmeier, 2009 ). The urgency for this strategic adjustment was explained by external “shocks” and turning points such as the financial crisis in 2009 and global challenges like climate change to name a few. Politics explicitly acknowledged the outstanding reputation of Germany’s research and science sector and the potential it has to reach “global elites and brains” and hence exert influence (GIS2, GIS4, Steinmeier, 2009 ), therefore being the win-win counterpart to real-politics (Ammon, 2009 ). This interconnectedness with foreign policy is repeatedly stressed in governmental documents while remaining vague on the exact goals it should respond to (cf. Auswärtiges Amt, 2013 ; Deutscher Bundestag, 2010 , 2011 ).

Phase 2: reorganising the network

A slight turning point to the political framing of the DWIH is evident in 2016 Footnote 8 . The FFO’s annual report on cultural and educational activities reinforced Germany’s pioneering role in addressing global challenges (Auswärtiges Amt, 2016 ) and pointed to the pertinent role of ideas and exchange in relation to economic and societal innovation and growth. The RARP, and hence DWIH, are considered as major tools to these ends. The document sets the increase of the percentage of international researchers in Germany as an additional objective, however, remains implicit as to whether the DWIH shall respond to this as well. Finally, the potential and the importance to address pre-political spaces are mentioned, as also addressed by the RARP. Altogether, the report mirrors classical components of the knowledge society in relation to RARP and adopts this framing most explicitly. Previous and subsequent documents instead focus stronger on the goals of profiling Germany as a strong research country or the strengthening of networks (cf. Auswärtiges Amt, 2017 , 2019 ).

2016 marked a turning point for the overall network as well. The legitimacy and general existence of the DWIH were questioned by the federal audit office, because of the failure of the DWIH to finance themselves (Bundesrechnungshof, 2013 ). This has been an initial design principle, though contested (GIW5). Responding to this critique an evaluation was conducted underlining the value of the DWIH. However, it called for a) a reorganisation, in terms of stronger top-down management, to improve the efficiency of the houses (GIS3) and b) for revised funding arrangements. Moreover, the Cairo office was closed (Auswärtiges Amt, 2017 ), considered by some sources as a political pawn sacrifice. The overall reorganisation did not concern the actual tasks but resulted in a streamlined appearance and coordination of activities of the different locations which had until then been operating quite differently (GIW6). Another change marked the transition from annual programme funding to institutional funding. As of today, the RARP is still in place and considered to play an ambassador role for Germany (GIS3).

SIC in Switzerland: swissnex

Swissnex in short.

One of the first countries to open a SIC was Switzerland. In 2000, the Swiss house for advanced research and education (SHARE) was opened in Boston (US), today better known as swissnex Boston (swissinfo.ch, 2000 ). This event signalled the start of the creation of a wider network succeeded by the launch of a pendant at the West Coast, in San Francisco, only three years later. Following the blueprints of these two locations, an expansion occurred with similar locations being opened in Singapore (2005) and China (2007). In 2008, the four locations were subject to a branding exercising, firming under the swissnex label. A second expansion wave or consolidation phase led to the opening of swissnex India (2011) and Brazil (2014) and came to an end in 2015 with the closing of swissnex Singapore and its transformation into a Science Counsellor at the Swiss embassy in Singapore (Der Bundesrat, 2015 ). The closure was explained with the fulfilment of swissnex’s initial mission, which was to strengthen the cooperation between the two countries (Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation, 2015 , p. 6). This official view is contested by other sources indicating the State Secretariat for Education, Research, and Innovation’s (SERI) pressure to respond to market dynamics and also given that the office was quite small (SIS4) and had limited financial means (Allen, 2015 ), the options were either a closing or a strengthening of the office (SIW1). In the meantime outposts had been opened in Guangzhou, New York and Sao Paulo (Swissnex, 2016 ).

The current network consists of the above-mentioned five SIC and respective outposts and is conjointly governed by the Federal Department for Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and SERI, whereas the latter thematically oversees swissnex (see Table 2 ). Around 5.5 million CHF are provided for their operation, while the single locations run on a public-private partnership model. According to the website, swissnex aims “to support the outreach and active engagement of our partners in the international exchange of knowledge, ideas and talent” (Swissnex, 2019 ) while also promoting the image of Switzerland as an innovative country. Following a critical report of a performance audit, the network was scrutinised (Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle, 2016 ; Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft, 2016 ) and another evaluation took place in 2019.

The development of the swissnex instrument, in terms of strategic goals and orientation, can be divided into three phases not necessarily corresponding to the development as portrayed above. The start of a new phase is linked to the political push of a new goal/narrative as visible in the policy documents.

Phase 1: brain drain and internationalisation responses

The incremental development of swissnex started in 2000 with the opening of SHARE Boston. The idea goes back to the initiative and pushes of a few key persons, policy entrepreneurs, being in turn supported by SERI (cf. Lombard Odier, 2011 , SIS4). Accordingly, the process of designing SHARE Boston originated in a bottom-up way, still marking a distinct operation principle of the current swissnex. The opening of SHARE Boston was surrounded by two societal developments. First, the millennium period was dominated by the peak of globalisation and the internationalisation of higher education and research. As a consequence, many countries started to adopt policies that facilitate internationalisation processes in a more consolidated way (Huisman and van der Wende, 2005 ). Secondly, the early 2000s also marked a time of increased international mobility and Switzerland was confronted with a brain drain situation given that many highly educated scientists moved to the United States, namely the Boston area, to advance their career (Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle, 2016 ; Lombard Odier, 2011 ; Marmier and Fetscherin, 2010 ; swissinfo.ch, 2000 ). In addition, a significant number of Swiss companies had set foot in the United States.

In light of these circumstances, SHARE Boston was installed as a response and considered to be the first “scientific consulate” (swissinfo.ch, 2000 ). Among SHARE Boston’s key missions was to provide a platform for the local Swiss expat community in order to give them a “roof” and keep them engaged with Switzerland (swissinfo.ch, 2000 ; SIS4). This idea was coupled with the goal to reverse Switzerland’s brain drain situation (Marmier and Fetscherin, 2010 ). A third strategic vision was to be present abroad, initiate and maintain the ties between Switzerland and the US and serve as “contact liaison” (SIS4). Back then, it was deliberately chosen to keep this new instrument independent and outside the borders of classic diplomacy, apart from administrative ties, explained by the—seemingly—different cultures of scientists and diplomats (SIS4).

While different sources point to the brain drain situation this goal is not prominently picked up in national policy documents of that time (cf. Schweizer Bundesrat, 1998 , 2002 ) and mentioned as a side note only. The Botschaft Footnote 9 2004–2007 (Schweizer Bundesrat, 2002 ) refers to a more salient issue, i.e., the need for internationalisation efforts in light of increased competition for talent (SIS4), thereby reflecting the knowledge society narrative. The Botschaft explicitly acknowledges the facilitating role that SHARE Boston and San Francisco (which had been opened in the meantime) play towards these ends. Additional emphasis is placed on the increase of the visibility of Swiss institutions and Switzerland. The creation and maintenance of networks, being swissnex’ initial goals, are identified as vehicles to these means.

Phase 2: bilateral cooperation programmes and expansion

Following the blueprints of Boston and San Francisco, an expansion took place as seen in the installation of a location in Singapore (2005) and China (2007). Anchored in the Botschaft 2008–2011 (Schweizer Bundesrat, 2007 ), the now four swiss houses should serve as an instrument to strengthen ties with regions and countries that are scientific “heavyweights”. While previously, the focus was on internationalisation efforts in general, assigning a crucial role to the two Swiss houses (Schweizer Bundesrat, 2002 ), the focus in Botschaft 2008–2011 has shifted towards highlighting the role of bilateral cooperation programmes in education and science. These bilateral cooperation programmes target key countries, among which North America, Singapore but also China. The Swiss houses are explicitly considered to play a facilitating role to these means. Particularly the new office in China is meant to address these goals and it is assigned a most prominent role for the valorisation of scientific, technological, and cultural achievements. The enlargement of the prevailing network of Swiss houses is explicitly mentioned as a strategic priority, though paying tribute to the need for improvements of the current structure.

Previous goals, such as to overcome the brain drain situation are not explicitly mentioned anymore in Botschaft 2008–2011 and the facilitation of internationalisation dynamics has shifted towards bilateral cooperation programmes. Hence, the goals of the instrument seem to have been subject to modification, possibly showing tendencies of layering. Succeeding policy documents (Botschaft 2012, Botschaft 2013–2016, Botschaft 2017–2020) repeatedly stressed the vital role that the now called swissnex network, plays for swiss international policy, while also serving as a blueprint for other countries. The documents confirm swissnex’ key targets as the facilitation of international exchange between higher education institutions, scientists and swiss enterprises but also to position Switzerland, internationally, as a key player in education, research, and science.

Phase 3: science diplomacy and soft power

2018 marks a turning point for swissnex’ political goals, again. The international strategy for education, research, and innovation (Schweizer Bundesrat, 2018 ) confirms the (historic) connection between scientific cooperation and diplomatic relations (cf. Fleury and Zala, 2012 ; Jost, 2012 ). Swissnex is explicitly identified as a vehicle to these means, while still having the promotion of Switzerland and international visibility at its core (also SIS2, SIS4, SIS5). The international strategy renders the notion of SD (“Wissenschaft für die Diplomatie”) by pointing to the neutral and non-political character of science. More specifically, science is referred to as enabling dialogue between countries and working as a bridge builder and hence swiss diplomacy can benefit from Swiss scientific excellence (EDA, 2019 ; SIS5). Swissnex, as having the facilitation of international cooperation at its heart, is explicitly identified as an instrument for diplomatic purposes stressing the neutral and non-political character of science. The publication of this document demonstrates that the SD character is, for the first time, most explicitly woven into the long-existing swissnex instrument. Notions of SD, as indicated at the outset, seem to work politically as a cover for the swissnex instrument. More generally, it was revealed that the development of swissnex has also been accompanied by differences in opinion between the two steering ministries, FDFA and SFBI. Though at first the FDFA was supposed to offer only the administrative support to the network, the topic became stronger connected to their portfolio (EDA, 2019 ).

Comparing the development and instrumentation of DWIH and swissnex

This section systematically compares the trajectory of the DWIH and swissnex (see Table 3 ) to assess its current shape and discern its political instrumentation over time and extract the political objectives that are tied to the instrument.

Development and institutionalisation of DWIH and swissnex

To start with, ample evidence reveals that the instruments had diverging points of departure and developed according to different logics. Swissnex started with a pilot office and developed quite rapidly during times when internationalisation was at a peak and Switzerland was exposed to a brain drain situation. The launch of swissnex is strongly linked to the ideas and pushes of policy entrepreneurs that seized opportunities. Hence the development of the instrument can be described as bottom-up driven with politics being in general supportive and giving leeway. These principles are reflective for swissnex’s current way of operating. In contrast, the DWIH were politically initiated in a top-down manner by the FFO in response to global challenges, though admittedly also policy entrepreneurs participated in the process. The Swiss model thereby served as a forerunner and an inspiration for the FFO pointing to a policy transfer exercise. The five DWIH were opened at once and almost ten years after the launch of the first swissnex.

Looking at actor constellations (Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995 ), the swissnex network developed in the beginning largely outside the realm of daily politics, though being supported. The data reveal initial reservations among the key stakeholders in the early stages that, however, quite soon diminished. Besides the key policy entrepreneurs, the main actors throughout the development were the two steering ministries SERI and the FDFA, occasionally supported by the swissnex committee that was installed later. This lean management structure is also mirrored in the governance structure of swissnex: the network operates largely according to a bottom-up principle, granting the individual locations room to manoeuvre and to experiment (with some limits), marking a replication of the Swiss research and science ecosystem. The expansion of the network and its development seem to have occurred demand-driven. This pragmatic bottom-up approach, is a distinct paradigm of swiss education and research policy (Pasternack et al., 2016 ), and explains swissnex’ shape and institutionalisation.

Turning to the actor constellations in Germany, a different picture is painted. The DWIH developed in response to (inter)organisational dynamics and against the background of strong strategic actor interests. The network of key research and science organisations played a vital role in the gradual institutionalisation of the DWIH, suggesting aggregation and appropriation effects . To specify, the “dominance of institutional interests” (Edler et al., 2010 , p. 175) is regarded to be a distinct element of the German research and science ecosystem, in particular given key research and science organisations’ decision-making autonomy, own (political) agenda, and vested interests they bring to the table (Stucke, 2010 ). This dominance of strategic interests and interorganisational dynamics seemed to have coined the DWIH’s gradual institutionalisation. The data reveals that the institutionalisation marks a balancing act between actors aiming to maintain independence while giving in to some form of collectivity. As of today, the role of key stakeholders is still strong and has been reconfirmed in the latest reorganisation given their formalised participation in central governing bodies. The multitude of key actors in the governing of the DWIH also impacts the way the DWIH (can) operate, given vested interests and the challenge to manoeuvre between different poles, at times. These differences in actor constellations and roles might be linked to inherent system characteristics like the size of the countries as well as the rules of the game and mindsets. To illustrate, Switzerland is a relatively small country, people know each other and “tensions are solved at the regular’s table” (i.e., Stammtisch) (SIW1), easing policy initiation and formulation.

In terms of political actors , in both cases, there were struggles throughout the process between the two key ministries, foreign ministry and sectoral ministry for education and research, as also reflected in the bureaucratic politics model (Jones, 2010 ). These struggles were mainly linked to competence and visibility, captured as appropriation effects in the policy instrumentation literature, but also reflective of different institutional cultures. Both cases reflect that the foreign ministries played a decisive role in the process shown in the fact that the SIC (partially) belong to their portfolio while this is not self-evident. Admittedly, the role of the German FFO is even more striking given its agenda setting role and rather undivided thematic supervision, pointing to a case of appropriation and the affirmation of new competences. In which ways this “interaction” (Scharpf, 2000 ) has exactly influenced the institutionalisation of SIC and whether the set-up of the SIC would have been different if the sectoral ministry would have been in the driver’s seat instead, is subject to additional research and/or speculation.

Today, both SIC show a high overlap in terms of geographical coverage as being in high impact countries and emerging markets. Both countries also closed a SIC in the past, i.e., Singapore (2015) and Cairo (2016) and have been subject to critique and evaluation by federal audit instances. This development mirrors a certain convergence between the two cases and shows that a functional dimension, i.e., governmental need to demonstrate impact, is connected to the operations of SIC. Accordingly, the development needs to be understood as being shaped by functional governmental logics. As concerns the current institutionalisation of the two SIC, they seemingly respond to a similar goal, however, the exact set-up differs and can be explained by the previous struggles. In addition, the model for resource allocation varies between public (DWIH) vs. public-private (swissnex) financed, the governance model reflects a bottom-up (swissnex) vs. top-down (DWIH) management and the involvement of (political) actors can be characterised as low (swissnex) vs. high (DWIH).

Policy objectives and instrumentation

The political instrumentation reflects similarities and differences between the German and Swiss SIC. From the beginning, SIC were embedded differently in overall strategic (SD) policies: the German SIC were firmly anchored in a new foreign policy initiative while the Swiss SIC marked an innovative pilot exercise developed by policy entrepreneurs that operated under the umbrella of diplomacy. These diverging starting positions are reflective for the ongoing instrumentation of SIC. The application of the policy instrumentation lens to the development of the DWIH and swissnex suggests that the (SD) instrument is consolidating as an institution and led to distinct effects as will be shown in the following.

To start with the political objectives that are attached to SIC, the findings demonstrate that swissnex was quite rapidly utilised by political actors (SERI and Federal Council) as a vehicle for tackling different objectives such as promoting international cooperation and visibility (phase 1), classical notions of the knowledge society (phase 1), as well as the facilitation of bilateral cooperation agreements (phase 2). This instrumentation can be captured as access and promotion, following Flink and Schreiterer ( 2010 ). In a similar vein, only recently did official policy documents explicitly identify scientific cooperation as a valuable tool for diplomatic relations and referred to swissnex as an example (phase 3). In particular, reference to soft power and the exertion of influence were considered as objectives of swissnex, thereby also explicitly referring to SD. This instrumentation marks a shift away from the previous focus on access and promotion towards influence (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 ) and might be explained by the evolving SD discourse in recent years and the governmental need to jump on this train. The data shows that swissnex was layered with various pressing political issues in the past and is reflective of the general “Zeitgeist”, trends, and objectives of national politics, hence its environment. Turning to the political objectives of the German SIC, the data reflects that the DWIH were ab initio elements of foreign policy and embedded in an overall strategy. The promotion of international cooperation and the strengthening of networks were conceived as vehicles for foreign policy goals mobilising soft power and aiming for the exertion of influence. This mirrors the SD debate as indicated at the outset and comprises rationales grouped as access, promotion, and influence (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010 ). These objectives remain the leading ones for the DWIH over time and point to the existence of a certain explanatory system linked to DWIH, suggesting a representation effect . A slight amendment occurred when the economic dimension to which DWIH shall contribute, was politically particularly stressed (phase 2). This economic focus comprises classical notions of the knowledge society and points to domestic needs (Gluckmann et al., 2017 ), indicating that access rationales are strong.

The institutionalisation of the SIC pointed to various dynamics and effects that have partially been addressed already, confirming their distinct role. SIC, in their respective setting, seem to have impacted the organisation of the policy field and potentially influenced social behaviour of actors as visible in the three instrumentation effects that occurred at different stages throughout the instruments’ trajectory (see Table 4 ). Given its long career, swissnex seems, over time, to have been connected with a certain cognitive effect as being a reliable instrument promoting various facets of international cooperation, signalling a representation and problematisation effect .

The continuous reshaping of swissnex’ goals, depicts an appropriation effect in the sense that the instruments offers a platform for reformulations and serves particular interests, in this case governmental interests. Cautiously formulated, these changes do, however, not seem to lead to substantial changes in actual practices, though this should be analysed in more depth. In light of evolving rationales swissnex reflects tendencies of longevity and a resistance against outside pressures such as critique by an audit instance, confirming its role as a solid institution. Adding to the theory, it seems that these two effects reinforce each other and might on their own explain inertia tendencies. To illustrate, the cognitive effect of the instrument is over time manifesting and consolidating in the environment. An institution once in place is, however, difficult to change and might hence explain why, even despite critique of an audit instance, the instrument remains in place and in fact does not dramatically change its way of operating. A similar effect can be seen in the case of the DWIH. The DWIH have been connected to a certain (SD) framing and respond to stable objectives over time (see previous section), pointing to a representation and problematisation effect . Hence the DWIH seem to adhere to the explanatory system as designed originally that might in fact have been the result of the initial bargaining exercise among heterogenous actors having to acquire a common understanding of the instrument ( aggregation and representation effect ). Over time, this shared cognition of the instrument is consolidating among the relevant actors and its environment and becomes difficult to change since it has become inextricably contextualised ( appropriation effect) . One might, accordingly, argue that the gradual institutionalisation of the instrument has shaped actor perceptions in such a way that it became resistant to outside pressures such as audit instances. This inertia can, in addition, be explained by the high and heterogenous number of actors involved, pointing to an aggregation effect . Accordingly, and adding to the theory, it became evident that the instrumentation effects often occur together and in fact reinforce each other leading to inertia.

To sum up, it can be observed that both SIC are inextricably embedded in a particular context, responsive to their environment and seem to consolidate as an institution. Given that the DWIH look back on a rather short history of only ten years, it is promising to see how the institutionalisation will further develop. It became evident that swissnex reflects changing political goals over time while the DWIH respond to relatively stable objectives. Eventually both countries explicitly consider SIC to be instruments of SD contributing to wider foreign policy objectives while also fostering international competitiveness and promoting international cooperation. Both instruments reveal a certain inertia regarding outside pressures, such as audit exercises (with some limits) and longevity. This holds true particularly in comparison to other funding instruments that are usually limited in time. Path-dependency aspects and the fact that new, unique and at times costly institutional structures are created might explain this inertia as well as, in the case of Germany, strong and diverse actor constellations. Closing a location creates a gap and might be understood as a political signal to the host country with respect to its (diminishing) political importance. The theoretical premises chosen to guide this study do not explicitly account for these two factors, yet they deem relevant. Particularly the concern of international visibility shows the limits of the political instrumentation approach since its explanatory power is linked to the national environment.

Discussion and conclusion

This research applied a comparative instrument-centred perspective to contribute to the SD scholarship. By shedding light on a novel and innovative instrument, SIC, a refined understanding of what is generally summarised as SD could be gained. To specify, the trajectory of the DWIH and swissnex has been retraced as well as its political instrumentation, i.e., the way the instrument has been used and the objectives and rationales it shall respond to. Despite, or maybe because of its size, but certainly because of its pragmatic, bottom-up approach, Switzerland pioneered in developing a unique and novel instrument that served as an inspiration and blueprint for several other countries, among which most clearly Germany. The analysis revealed that the SIC developed according to different logics that are reflective for the environment they operate in. These system characteristics also impacted the varying institutionalisation of the instrument and account for its differing structure and way of operating, indicating instrumentation effects.

Although both SIC are (nowadays) politically framed as an instrument targeting SD, this has not always been the case for Switzerland. Swissnex was already long in place as a distinct and renowned instrument before it was re-branded and explicitly linked to SD in political documents, in 2018, not necessarily pointing to a change in practice. This reconfirms that while SD might be a new (political) trend, the practices it covers are not per se; as the proverb goes, old wine in new bottles. Whether this relabelling exercise creates certain advantages for domestic actors marks an avenue for further research. In sharp contrast to that stands the development of the DWIH. They were launched as part of a distinct policy package aiming to tackle and promote SD. Accordingly, the findings emphasise that on the one hand existing practices might be relabelled as SD, demonstrating governmental responsiveness. On the other hand, the SD discourse might give rise to new and distinct policy responses. Whether governments opt for one or the other makes a difference in terms of assessing whether SD is merely a window-dressing exercise or whether it is reflective of a new policy paradigm.

The study identified that the instrumentation of SIC differs between the two countries and reveals political objectives that are richer than conventionally conceived in the literature. While the workings of soft power appear to constitute the leading narrative surrounding the overall debate, this research has reconfirmed that soft power is only part of the picture. Notably, the projection of influence, in the case of swissnex is only explicitly mentioned in 2018. For a comparatively small country, one would have expected this to be stronger interwoven with the instrument, considering the missing availability of natural resources and the subsequent need to be internationally competitive. The findings show that the scope of objectives ranges from economic aspects such as securing national competitiveness (knowledge society), to internationalisation efforts, to visibility and branding exercises, to the exertion of influence, as well as responding to global challenges. With the exception of responding to global challenges, these objectives can be subsumed under the rationales of access, promotion and influence. Altogether, these objectives mirror a clear national dimension and motivation and are firmly embedded in the logic of (scientific) global competition and cooperation. Hence, the findings contest the widely spread assumption that SD “transcends national interests” (The Royal Society and AAAS, 2010 ). Instead, domestic needs and interests are covered under notions of SD, thereby challenging SD’s assumed win-win character and scrutinising its glorification of being a silver bullet. In other words, opening the blackbox of SD, in the case of SIC, reveals national interests to be in the front row.

To sum up, this study helps to understand the development of an innovative instrument (of SD), as well as its political instrumentation. The analysis pointed to elements explaining the gradual institutionalisation of the instrument, revealed the role of actor constellations and interactions and offered insights on how the instrument unfolded impact. In addition, the study displayed the richness of objectives that are grouped under the umbrella of SD. Approaching SD from an instrument-centred perspective has been fruitful to mitigate the boundary challenges linked to the prevailing use of the concept while being able to foreground its political instrumentation. In the words of Lascoumes and Le Galès ( 2007 ), the analysis of SIC lifted the smokescreen of SD and showed what (else) is at stake politically.

Data availability

The data sets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are to a limited extent publicly available. The sample of documents can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Restrictions apply to interview data given the sensitive nature of the research and missing consent of interviewees. As anonymity and confidentiality was guaranteed no interview data can be shared.

Traditional diplomacy (cf. Constantinou et al., 2016 ) refers to a rigid understanding of diplomacy in terms of actors, tasks and channels of communication (also known as club diplomacy) as opposed to new forms, modes of interaction and actors (Cooper et al., 2013b ; Cooper, 2013a ).

13 in-depth interviews were selected for analysis (including two interviews of the site visits, not listed below); they are part of a wider data collection exercise in relation to a larger research project. The interviews took place between June 2017–May 2018. Germany: Interviews GIS1, GIS2, GIS3, GIS4: current/former senior state officials, FFO; Interviews GIW5, GIW6, GIW8: senior representatives, key research and science organisations; Switzerland: Interviews SIS2, SIS3, SIS4, SIS5: current/former senior state officials, FDFA and SERIInterview SIW1: former senior representative, research and science organisation.

This section is informed by (1) a desk study on different national SIC that the author conducted (2) site visits and two interviews with SIC of Denmark and Switzerland (Nov. 2017) and (3) a consultation of the literature.

The BRICS countries are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Initiative Außenwissenschaft.

Members of the “Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen” include: Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, German Academic Exchange Service, the German Council of Science and Humanities, German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, German Research Foundation (DFG), Fraunhofer Association, German Rector’s Conference, the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres, the Leibniz Association, and the Max Planck Society. https://www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/alliance/index.html (visited last 14.06.2019).

In comparison the Federal Ministry for Education and Research’s overall budged accounted for 20.3 mrd. Euros in 2010 (Der Tagesspiegel, 2009 ).

Nota bene, interviews pointed to notions of the knowledge society already as motivations during the GCRI’s design phase. However, this focus was not explicitly manifested in policy documentation prior to 2016.

Botschaft are policy documents that determine the political goals, set the overall strategic direction and vision for the respective legislative periods and are typically published one or two years ahead of the period they address.

Allen M (2015) Swissnex to close Singapore office, swissinfo.ch

Allison GT (1968) Conceptual models and the cuban missile crisis: rational policy, organization process, and bureaucratic politics. P-3919, California. Accessed 18 Nov 2019

Almeida Domingues A, Ribeiro Neto PH (2017) Science Diplomacy as a tool of international politics: the power of “soft power”. Braz J Int Relat 6(3):607–629

Google Scholar  

Altbach PG, Reisberg L, Rumbley LE (2009) Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution: a report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Paris. Accessed 29 July 2019

Ammon P (2009) Rede zur Auftaktkonferenz der Initiative Außenwissenschaft 2009, Berlin

Auswärtiges Amt (ed) (2009a) Wissenswelten verbinden. Deutsche Außenpolitik für mehr Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung: Konferenzdokumentation. Edition Diplomatie. Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin

Auswärtiges Amt (2009b) Wissenswelten verbinden.-Auftaktkonferenz zur Initiative Außenwissenschaftspolitik, Berlin

Auswärtiges Amt (2013) 16. Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Auswärtigen Kultur- und Bildungspolitik 2011/2012, Berlin

Auswärtiges Amt (2016) 19. Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Auswärtigen Kultur- und Bildungspolitik: Kultur, Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kommunikation in globaler Verantwortung, Berlin

Auswärtiges Amt (2017) 20. Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Auswärtigen Kultur- und Bildungspolitik 2016: Menschen bewegen: Dialogräume schaffen Brücken bauen Perspektiven entwickeln, Berlin

Auswärtiges Amt (2019) 21. Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Auswärtigen Kultur- und Bildungspolitik für das Jahr 2017: Zugang zu Kultur und Bildung: Kulturelle Freiräume schaffen und gestalten, Berlin. Accessed 31 May 2019

Bache I (2010) Partnership as an EU policy instrument: a political history. West Eur Polit 33(1):58–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903354080

Article   Google Scholar  

Bendor J, Hammond TH (1992) Rethinking Allison’s Models. Am Political Sci Rev 86(2):301–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964222

Berg L-P (2010) Science diplomacy networks. In: Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (ed.) Swiss Science Diplomacy, 2nd edn. Politorbis, vol. 49, pp 69–74

Berkman PA, Lang, Michael A, Walton DWH, Young, Oran R (eds) (2011) Science diplomacy: Antarctica, and the governance of international spaces. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington D.C.

Borgwardt A (ed) (2009) Wissenschaftsaußenpolitik: Deutschland als Knotenpunkt im weltweiten Wissensnetzwerk; Konferenzbericht der Veranstaltung vom 13. November 2008 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 1. Aufl. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin

Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9(2):27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bundesrechnungshof (2013) Auswärtiges Amt: Wissenschafts- und Innovationshäuser des Auswärtigen Amtes tragen sich weiterhin nicht selbst. In: Bundesrechnungshof (ed) Bemerkungen 2013 zur Haushalts- und Wirtschaftsführung des Bundes, Bonn

Capano G, Howlett M (2020) The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. SAGE Open 10(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568

Carlsson B (2006) Internationalization of innovation systems: a survey of the literature. Res Policy 35(1):56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.003

Constantinou CM, Kerr P, Sharp P (eds) (2016) The SAGE handbook of diplomacy. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi

Constantinou CM, Sharp P (2016) Theoretical Perspectives in Diplomacy. In: Constantinou CM, Kerr P, Sharp P (eds) The SAGE handbook of diplomacy. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, pp. 13–27

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cooper AF (2013a) The changing nature of diplomacy. In: Cooper AF, Heine J, Thakur R (eds) The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 35–53

Cooper AF, Heine J, Thakur R (2013b) Introduction: The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy. In: Cooper AF, Heine J, Thakur R (eds) The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–31

Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO (2018) The Global Innovation Index 2018: Energizing the World with Innovation. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva, Accessed 19 Jun 2019

Davis LS, Patman RG (eds) (2015) Science diplomacy: new day or false dawn? World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore

Der Bundesrat (2015) swissnex Singapore schliesst die Türen, Bildungs- und Wissenschaftsbüro an Botschaft neu eröffnet, Bern

Der Tagesspiegel (2009) BMBF: Mehr Geld für Schavans Ministerium. Der Tagesspiegel

Deutscher Bundestag (2010) Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Auswärtigen Kulturpolitik 2008/2009, 17/970, Berlin. Accessed 16 Jul 2019

Deutscher Bundestag (2011) Bericht der Bundesregierung zur Auswärtigen Kultur- und Bildungspolitik 2009/2010, 17/4413, Berlin. Accessed 16 July 2019

DWIH-Netzwerk (2019) Objectives. https://www.dwih-netzwerk.de/en/who-we-are/objectives/ . Accessed 27 Jun 2019

EDA (2019) Die Schweiz in der Welt 2028: Bericht der Arbeitsgruppe «Aussenpolitische Vision Schweiz 2028». Accessed 4 Nov 2019

Edler J, Fagerberg J (2017) Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 33(1):2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001

Edler J, Kuhlmann S, Stegmaier P (2010) Fragmentierung und Koordination-Governance der Wissenschafts-und Innovationspolitik in Deutschland. In: Seckelmann M, Lange S, Horstmann T (eds) Die Gemeinschaftsaufgaben von Bund und Ländern in der Wissenschafts- und Bildungspolitik: Analysen und Erfahrungen. Nomos, Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp. 169–194

Eidgenössische Finanzkontrolle (2016) Wirtschaftlichkeitsprüfung des Aussennetzes für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation (Swissnex): Staatssekretariat für Bildung. Forschung und Innovation. EFK-15312, Bern

Epping E (2018) Science and Innovation Centers–bringing a new dimension to the internationalization of higher education, research and innovation. Accessed 5 Sep 2018

Fähnrich B (2015) Science diplomacy: investigating the perspective of scholars on politics-science collaboration in international affairs. Public Understanding of Science:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515616552

Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (2010) Swiss Science Diplomacy. Politorbis, vol 49. Accessed 3 Apr 2017

Fetscherin M, Marmier P (2010) Switzerland’s nation branding initiative to foster science and technology, higher education and innovation: a case study. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6(1):58–67. https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2010.6

Fleury A, Zala S (eds) (2012) Wissenschaft und Aussenpolitik: Beiträge zur Tagung anlässlich des 50. Jubiläums der Schaffung des ersten Postens eines schweizerischen Wissenschaftsattachés. Diplomatische Dokumente der Schweiz, Bern, Quaderni di Dodis, vol 1

Flick U (2011) Triangulation: Eine Einführung. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

Book   Google Scholar  

Flick U (ed) (2018) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. Sage, Los Angeles

Flink T (2020) Wissenschaftsdiplomatie in der Europäischen Union: Praktiken und Perspektiven. Forschung, Politik-Strategie-Management 1+2(2019):5–11

Flink T, Rüffin NV (2019) The current state of the art of science diplomacy. In: Cranzler W, Kuhlmann S, Simon D (eds) Handbook on science and public policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 104–121

Flink T, Schreiterer U (2010) Science diplomacy at the intersection of S&T policies and foreign affairs: toward a typology of national approaches. Sci Public Policy 37(9):665–677

Gerring J (2004) What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? Am Polit Sci Rev 98(2):341–354

Gioia DA, Corley KG, Hamilton AL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organ Res Methods 16(1):15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

Gluckmann PD, Turekian V, Grimes RW, Kishi T (2017) Science diplomacy: a pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science Diplomacy, 6(4). Accessed 25 Jul 2019

Goodsite ME et al. (2016) The role of science diplomacy: a historical development and international legal framework of arctic research stations under conditions of climate change, post-cold war geopolitics and globalization/power transition. J Environ Stud Sci 6(4):645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0329-6

Gunn A (2017) Policy entrepreneurs and policy formulation. In: Howlett M, Mukherjee I (eds) Handbook of policy formulation. Handbooks of research on public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 265–282

Gupta K (2012) Comparative public policy: using the comparative method to advance our understanding of the policy process. Policy Stud J 40(S1):11–26

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Harnischfeger H (2007) Auswärtige Kulturpolitik. In: Schmidt S, Hellmann G, Wolf R (eds) Handbuch zur deutschen Außenpolitik. 1. Aufl. VS Verl. für Sozialwiss, Wiesbaden, pp. 713–723

Heidenheimer AJ, Heclo H, Teich Adams C (2005) The politics of social choice. In: Wiarda HJ (ed) Comparative politics: Volume VI Comparative Public Policy. Routledge, London, vol 6, pp. 13–36

Helfferich C (2011) Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. 4. Auflage. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden

Hood C (2007) Intellectual Obsolescence and Intellectual Makeovers: Reflections on the Tools of Government after Two Decades. Governance 20(1):127–144

Howlett M (1991) Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: national approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Stud J 19(2):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1991.tb01878.x

Howlett M (2000) Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Admin 43(4):412–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2000.tb01152.x

Howlett M, Ramesh M (2003) Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems, 2. ed. Oxford Univ. Press, Don Mills, Ontario

Huisman J, van der Wende M (eds) (2005) On cooperation and Competition II: Institutional responses to Internationalisation, Europeanisation and Globalisation. Lemmens, Bonn, ACA papers on international cooperation in education

Jones CM (2010) Bureaucratic politics and organizational process models. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedias (ed.)

Jost HU (2012) Wissenschaft auf Aussenposten.: Eine Einführung zur Geschichte der Wissenschaftsattachés. In: Fleury A, Zala S (eds) Wissenschaft und Aussenpolitik: Beiträge zur Tagung anlässlich des 50. Diplomatische Dokumente der Schweiz, Bern, pp. 15–20. Jubiläums der Schaffung des ersten Postens eines schweizerischen Wissenschaftsattachés, 3.–4. Dezember 2008. Quaderni di Dodisvol 1

Kaltofen C, Acuto M, Blackstock J (eds) (2018) Special Issue: Science Diplomacy. Global Policy 9(53):1–80.

Kassim H, Le Galès P (2010) Exploring governance in a multi-level polity: a policy instruments approach. West Eur Polit 33(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903354031

Laclau E, Mouffe C (2014) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics, 2 edn. Verso, London, New York, Radical thinkers

Lascoumes P, Le Galès P (2004) Gouverner par les instruments. Sciences Po Gouvernance. Presses de Sciences Po, Paris

Lascoumes P, Le Galès P (2007) Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance 20(1):1–21

Lascoumes P, Simard L (2011) Public policy seen through the prism of its instruments. Rev Fr Sci Polit (English) 61(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfspe.611.0001

Le Galès P (2016) Performance measurement as a policy instrument. Policy Stud 37(6):508–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1213803

Leca B, Battilana J, Boxenbaum E (2009) Agency and Institutions: a Review of Institutional Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals 3:65–107

Lombard Odier (2011) Collaboration and Partnerships: the ‘swissnex’ Case. Geneva

Mansell R (2018) Science diplomacy and internet governance. In: Marzouki M, Calderaro A (eds) Global internet governance as a diplomacy issue. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Lanham

Margetts H, Hood C (2016) Tools Approaches. In: Peters BG, Zittoun P (eds) Contemporary approaches to public policy: theories, controversies and perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 133–154

Marmier P, Fetscherin M (2010) Case E: a public–private partnership to foster science, higher education and innovation–the case of Switzerland with swissnex Boston. In: Go F, Govers R (eds) International place branding yearbook 2010: place branding in the new age of innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 97–109

Mayntz R, Scharpf FW (1995) Der Ansatz des akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus. In: Mayntz R, Scharpf FW (eds) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New York, pp. 39–72

Milkoreit M (2015) Science and Climate Change Diplomacy: Cognitive Limits and the Need to Reinvent Science Communication. In: Davis LS, Patman RG (eds) Science diplomacy: new day or false dawn? World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, pp. 109–131

Nye JS (2008) Public diplomacy and soft power. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 616(1):94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699

Pasternack P et al. (2016) Die BFI-Policy-Arena in der Schweiz: Akteurskonstellation in der Bildungs-, Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik, 1. BWV Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, Auflage. Hochschul-und Wissenschaftsforschung Halle-Wittenberg

Powell JJW (2018) Higher education and the exponential rise of science: competition and collaboration. In: Scott RA, Buchmann M, Kosslyn SM (eds) Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: an interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable resource. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1–17

Powell JJW (2020) Comparative education in an age of competition and collaboration. Comp Educ 56(1):57–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2019.1701248

Rapley T, Rees G (2018) Collecting documents as data. In: Flick U (ed) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. Sage, Los Angeles, pp. 548–565

Rüffin NV (2018) Case study science and innovation diplomacy agencies at the nexus of research, economics, and politics. Working Paper, 2018/10. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/0bc3be_f01101aa794e4a64a5158258a5bed939.pdf . Accessed 5 Jul 2018

Rüffin NV, Schreiterer U (2017) Emerging practices of diplomacy for science in europe: tensions and potentials?: Panel T05P06 Session 2 Challenges in global policy making: the ‘practice turn’ in the new diplomacy, Singapore. http://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/594155d9959dd.pdf . Accessed 31 Jul 2017

Ruffini P-B (2018) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Science-Diplomacy Nexus. In: Kaltofen C, Acuto M, Blackstock J (eds) Special Issue: Science Diplomacy. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Oxford, pp. 73–77

Saurugger S (2014) The changing nature of instruments: why and how instruments of participation change in the European union. In: Halpern C, Lascoumes P, Le Galès P (eds) L’instrumentation de l’action publique: Controverses, résistances, effets. Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Paris, pp. 317–341

Scharpf FW (2000) Interaktionsformen: Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Leske+Budrich, Opladen, UTB für Wissenschaft Uni-Taschenbücher Politikwissenschaft, vol 2136

Schütte G (2006) Diplomatie der Forscher: Wenn Deutschland international mithalten will, braucht es eine Außenwissenschaftspolitik. Ein Plädoyer. Die Zeit (16)

Schütte G (ed) (2008) Wettlauf ums Wissen: Außenwirtschaftspolitik im Zeitalter der Wissensrevolution. 1. Aufl. Berlin Univ. Press, Berlin

Schweizer Bundesrat (1998) 98.070 Botschaft über die Förderung von Bildung, Forschung und Technologie in den Jahren 2000-2003, 1998-505. Accessed 27 Jun 2019

Schweizer Bundesrat (2002) 02.089 Botschaft über die Förderung von Bildung, Forschung und Technologie in den Jahren 2004–2007, 2002–1417. Accessed 6 Jul 2017

Schweizer Bundesrat (2007) 07.012 Botschaft über die Förderung von Bildung, Forschung und Innovation in den Jahren 2008–2011, 2006-1630. Accessed 9 Jul 2017

Schweizer Bundesrat (2018) Internationale Strategie der Schweiz im Bereich Bildung, Forschung und Innovation: Strategie des Bundesrates, Bern. Accessed 10 Jul 2019

Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft (2016) 16.025 Botschaft zur Förderung von Bildung, Forschung und Innovation in den Jahren 2017–2020, 2015–2540

Sending OJ, Pouliot V, Neumann IB (2011) The future of diplomacy: changing practices, evolving relationships. Int J 66(3):527–542

Smelser NJ (2003) On comparative analysis, interdisciplinarity and internationalization in sociology. Int Sociol 18(4):643–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903184001

Smith III FL (2014) Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit. Soc Stud Sci 44(6):825–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714535864

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation (2015) Eine Roadmap für die Weiterentwicklung des swissnex Netzwerkes: Bilanz, Perspektiven und Leitlinien. Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation, Bern

Steinmeier F-W (2008) Rede vor dem Ausschuss für Kultur und Medien des Deutschen Bundestags

Steinmeier F-W (2009) Rede zur Eröffnung der Auftaktkonferenz zur Initiative Außenwissenschaftspolitik

Stucke A (2010) Staatliche Akteure in der Wissenschaftspolitik. In: Simon D, Knie A, Hornbostel S (eds) Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik. VS Verl. für Sozialwiss, Wiesbaden, pp. 363–376

swissinfo.ch (2000) Swiss House in Cambridge eingeweiht. https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/swiss-house-in-cambridge-eingeweiht/1699438 . Accessed16 Mar 2018

Swissnex (2016) ERI network: learn more about the swissnex network, its outposts, and the role of science and technology counsellors. https://www.swissnex.org/about/erinetwork/ . Accessed 23 May 2017

Swissnex (2019) Our mission. https://www.swissnex.org/about/mission/ . Accessed 24 Jun 2019

The Royal Society, AAAS (2010) New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power, London. Accessed 19 Jan 2017

Treib O (2015) Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus. In: Wenzelburger G, Zohlnhöfer R (eds) Handbuch Policy-Forschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 277–303

Turekian VC et al. (2015) The emergence of science diplomacy. In: Davis LS, Patman RG (eds) Science diplomacy: new day or false dawn? World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, pp. 3–24

Voß J-P, Simons A (2014) Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: the social life of emissions trading. Environ Polit 23(5):735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.923625

de Wit H, Hunter F, Howard L, Egron-Polak E (2015) Internationalisation of Higher Education, Brussels. Accessed 11 Jul 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks her colleagues from the University of Luxembourg as well as the EduGov Team of the Hertie School for valueable feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Elisabeth Epping

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Epping .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Epping, E. Lifting the smokescreen of science diplomacy: comparing the political instrumentation of science and innovation centres. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7 , 111 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00599-4

Download citation

Received : 05 December 2019

Accepted : 08 September 2020

Published : 30 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00599-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Science diplomacy in medical physics – an international perspective.

• Cari Borrás
• Loredana G. Marcu

Health and Technology (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Quick Links

• RESOURCE CENTER
• MEMBER LOGIN

External Links

• AAAS Communities
• SCIENCE CAREERS
• SCIENCE FAMILY OF JOURNALS
• More AAAS Sites

The AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy builds bridges between communities, societies, and nations through closer interactions between science and diplomacy and elevates the role of science in foreign policy to address national and global challenges

Since its establishment in 2008, the Center has been a leader in conceptualizing science diplomacy as a critical aspect of science and international relations. The Center demonstrates how science can build bridges between societies where official relationships may be strained, strengthens interactions and partnerships between the scientific and diplomatic communities, and develops the intellectual framework and training to support the practice of science diplomacy. 

Connecting Scientists to Policy Around the World

Furthering United States-European Union Priorities in Science: AAAS Travels to Belgium

AAAS and Cuban Academy of Sciences Brainstorm on U.S.-Cuba Shared Challenges and Opportunities in Aging and Disaster Management

Using Science to See the Human in the Other: An Interview with Dr. Tareq Abu Hamed

2024 AAAS Annual Meeting Archive

AAAS Visit to India: Emerging Power in Science and Technology

Special Issue: Science Diplomacy – 15 Years On

AAAS Announces 2024 Award Recipients

Science and Technology at the World Bank: Recommendations to President Ajay Banga

Reflecting and Celebrating: Takeaways from AAAS Visit to the United Kingdom

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Editorial article, editorial: science diplomacy and sustainable development: perspectives from latin america.

• 1 Department of Science and Technology Policies, Institute of Geosciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
• 2 Institute for the Development of Higher Education in Guatemala, Member of the Directive Board, Instituto para el Desarrollo de la Educación Superior en Guatemala (INDESGUA), Guatemala City, Guatemala
• 3 Facultad de Agronomía, Postdoctoral Researcher, Guatemala City, Guatemala
• 4 Independent Researcher, Guatemala, Guatemala

Editorial on the Research Topic Science Diplomacy and Sustainable Development: Perspectives From Latin America

The current times present humanity with challenges that require actions beyond multidisciplinarity. They demand a transdisciplinary approach that collaborates scientific knowledge, policy, business dynamics and ancestral wisdom for solutions. In transdisciplinarity, Science Diplomacy (SD) is a specialty that fosters the engagement of diverse disciplines and stakeholders in the interface of science and foreign policy to convey a positive impact on societies and their inhabitants. This is particularly relevant in realities such as those in Latin America, where the pursuit of sustainable development for present and future generations posits a critical emphasis on respecting the planet and its resources. It is in this regard the Research Topic: Science Diplomacy and Sustainable Development: Perspectives from Latin America aims to explore relevant discussions on the need for science to be conceived internationally for sustainable national and global solutions. This is paramount because it enables actors from different countries and regions to engage in collaborative efforts towards shared objectives in seeking sustainable development, while working towards the 2030 sustainable development agenda. By bringing these issues to the fore it intended to balance studies that have been emerging from and concentrating on the European and North American focus. It is necessary to establish that the mechanisms to advance sustainable development depend on the characteristics of each territory. Therefore, for Latin American and Caribbean region, considering aspects such as communication, cultural belonging, indigenous wisdom from native populations, and gender could be beneficial in the advancement of knowledge and their effect on improving the lives of its communities.

The articles published as part of this Research Topic show the plurality of SD initiatives, the multiple challenges they face and the limits for implementation. These 14 articles can be divided into four groups. The first group deals with SD institutionalization strategies in the Latin American context. Science Diplomacy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Perspectives ( Soler ) describes the diverse approaches, policies and practices adopted by Latin American and Caribbean countries at the national, sub-national, and regional levels. By documenting and illuminating best practices in the region, this paper further seeks to balance the perspective that has so far been largely concentrated on the regions of Europe and North America and contribute to future efforts and strategies for the development of sustainable science diplomacy mechanisms at the national, regional, North-South and South-South levels. In addition to this discussion, The Institutional Building of Science and Innovation Diplomacy in Latin America: toward a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach and analytical typology ( da Silva, et al. ) proposes, from a qualitative perspective and a multilevel typology, categories for the analysis of the emerging experiences within the framework of Science and Innovation Diplomacy in Latin America. Thus, providing a broad framework that can be used at various levels and sectors. In turn, Closing the Gap Between Emerging Initiatives and Integrated Strategies to Strengthen Science Diplomacy in Latin America ( López-Vergès et al. ) elaborates on the emerging efforts and mechanisms to bridge the gap between scientists and policymakers at the national and regional level. Based on national experiences, the paper proposes a way forward so that Latin America can leapfrog beyond disjointed training of individuals into integrated institutional strategies that can harness the tools of science diplomacy to enhance science-informed multilateral cooperation and enable more effective science-informed policymaking.

The second set of articles deals with discussions concerning policies, capacity building and good practices developed in emerging countries. The papers portray an interesting set of case studies, particularly from Central American countries. Institutional Capacity for Science Diplomacy in Central America ( Jarquin-Solis and Mauduit ) reveals several public management challenges stemming from the institutional disparity and complexity of the region, already marked by significant asymmetries of human development between the various countries. Highlighting and understanding such challenges may be helpful in developing meaningful strategies around science diplomacy for countries in the central America region. Already in turn, Science Diplomacy in Emerging Economies: A Phenomenological Analysis of the Colombian Case ( Echeverría et al. ) asserts that SD actors in Colombia are scattered, practices strongly related to traditional cooperation diplomatic activities are fragmented and call attention to the need to give a function to SD for capacity building. Therefore the authors conclude that better global intermediation and the development of new knowledge, in particular in promoting SD abilities in the scientific community would enhance the interaction between science and policy.

Focusing on the Ecuador experience, Science Diplomacy in Ecuador: Political Discourse and Practices Between 2007 and 2017 ( Bonilla et al. ) points out the different implications from the SD perspective in Ecuador; particularly, reflecting on the consistency between the political rhetoric and the policy implementation. Evidence presented in this article suggests that the political discourse materialized into concrete Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policies that could partially explain positive transformations in various aspects of the STI context in Ecuador. Institutional strengthening, international mobility (inward and outward), increased scientific output, and foreign policy practices involving SD (which can be traced in the studied period 2007–2017) have all contributed towards positive transformations. Showing the process of strengthening and developing Panama’s scientific ecosystem, Science Diplomacy as an Umbrella Term for Science Advisory in Public and Foreign Relations in Small Developing Countries: The Case of Panama ( Gittens et al. ) presents the main public institution in the country–the National Secretariat for Science, Technology and Innovation (SENACYT)—and its role in promoting research. Furthermore, SENACYT Panamá is recognized as pioneering the importance of training young scientists in communication, relationship and leadership skills in SD. Ocean Science Diplomacy ( Polejack and Fernandez Coelho ) sets out how Latin America and the Caribbean seek, despite the limitations in terms of access to technology, to conduct marine scientific research in order to take advantage of the opportunities of the blue economy. Based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the paper seeks to discuss the transfer of marine technology to developing countries and thus advance their knowledge of this reality and promote their sustainable development. Finally, Decolonizing Science Diplomacy: A Case Study of the Dominican Republic’s COVID-19 Response ( Mencía-Ripley et al. ) discusses a case of how science diplomacy and a relatively new law fostering public-private partnerships allowed a university to play a major role in public health response while generating knowledge to inform public policy decisions in an unprecedented manner in the Dominican Republic. In the case, SD is discussed in the context of decolonization and the importance of the local gaze when creating academic partnerships in the context of global health emergencies.

The third set of articles seeks to debate aspects related to the education and career of researchers from Latin American and Caribbean countries, with special emphasis on the issue of gender, analyzing the participation of women in the scientific community. Science diplomacy for climate action and sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean: How important is the Early Career perspective to New Governance? ( Cuellar-Ramirez ) collects a series of examples of the progress, best practices, gaps, challenges and solutions. The author does it from the perspective of Early Careers Researchers (ECRs) and undergraduate and graduate students, highlighting what it has been done to engage scientists in society-policy-science interaction for sustainable development agenda and climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. The case of Call to Action: Supporting Latin American Early Career Researchers on the Quest for Sustainable Development in the Region ( Lopez-Verges et al. ) encourages reflection on the challenges that the ECRs in Latin America and Caribbeans Countries experience. By considering these challenges and actively participating in studies about ECRs, she proposes the creation of strategies to better support the next generation of science change-makers in the region. The success of this study required collaboration between ECR organizations and policymakers, and therefore harnessing the human capital that ECRs-LAC represents is crucial for the region to meet the United Nations (UN) 2030 sustainable development goals. Looking for the gender perspective, Participation in Communities of Women Scientists in Central America: Implications From the Science Diplomacy Perspective ( Bonilla et al. ) explores the experiences of women scientists participating in communities of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, and attempt to systematize the challenges and opportunities derived from such activities. The findings of this study revealed few cases of community building experiences among women scientists within the studied countries. Evidence also showed the emergence of shared patterns in terms of barriers and disincentives to participating in such communities. Therefore, offering explanation for the lack of participation of women scientists in collective initiatives in Central America.

Finally, the fourth set of papers deals with discussions related to the communication of science, from the perspective of building bridges with the DS debates. The first one, Bringing Policymakers to Science Through Communication: A Perspective From Latin America ( Pulido-Salgado and Castaneda Mena ), aims at providing some recommendations to build bridges between science and decision-making parties through communication, and by exploring how Latin American diplomats and policymakers engage with scientific knowledge. In turn, Latin American Network for Scientific Culture (RedLCC): A Regional Science Communication Initiative ( Moronta-Barrios et al. ) presents an analysis of blogs and social media platforms, that are specifically open for addressing information about science to citizens in the Latin America, and are easily accessible resources. In addition, the Latin American Network for Scientific Culture (RedLCC) is highlighted as one of the regional science communication initiatives. It brings together regional scientists that communicate science for Latin American communities, and consequently nurtures the “Science for Diplomacy” dimension of SD. Thus, the communication mechanisms for Science Diplomacy and Sustainable Development are essential and strengthening them progressively could contribute to effective science communication.

The co-editors are convinced that these articles can contribute to future efforts and strategies for the development of sustainable science diplomacy mechanisms at the national, regional, North-South and South-South levels. We believe that a major contribution of the Research Topic is the inclusion of the different approaches, policies and practices adopted by Latin American and Caribbean countries at different levels. In addition, this Research Topic contributes to increasing the visibility of SD studies in the scope of Latin America, allowing for counterbalancing the emphasis, focus and narratives that studies from the regions of Europe and America imprint on DS studies. We look forward to seeing the growth of the field of Latin American studies in science diplomacy.

We thank all the authors, co-authors, reviewers and external editors who participated in this process. We also thank Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics for making it possible the publication of this Research Topic and all the articles as part of this collection.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. The leadership and coordination of corresponding author KB in the writing of the editorial is acknowledged.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: science diplomacy, Latin America, sustainable development, STI Policy, LATAM, multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, Innovation Diplomacy

Citation: Bonilla K, Serafim M, Bámaca-López E and Castaneda Mena FA (2021) Editorial: Science Diplomacy and Sustainable Development: Perspectives From Latin America. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 6:756698. doi: 10.3389/frma.2021.756698

Received: 10 August 2021; Accepted: 23 August 2021; Published: 08 September 2021.

Edited and reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Bonilla, Serafim, Bámaca-López and Castaneda Mena. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Kleinsy Bonilla, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Science Diplomacy and Sustainable Development: Perspectives from Latin America

Mitigating Crisis: the Power of Science Diplomacy

In an era of historic instability, how can scientists and global science institutions work together as a force for diplomacy? At the ISC Mid-term Meeting in Paris, Members discussed how scientists can use international networks as a mediating force in crises and to more effectively take on long-term challenges.

“The power of the global scientific community to affect change should not be understated,” says Jean-Christophe Mauduit, an expert in science diplomacy and lecturer at University College London.

In the “Science Diplomacy and Science in a Time of Crisis” session ISC members looked at how science and the ISC can work for diplomacy amidst unprecedented, interconnected challenges, including climate change, economic and political instability, intense nationalism and armed conflict – all in the aftermath of a historic health crisis. 

In the face of these challenges, the “soft power” of science has the power to reshape global diplomacy, argues Mauduit, quoting Nobel Prize-winning chemist Ahmed Zewail.

Science diplomacy can be a tool to help countries engage across a political divide. Mauduit notes the example of the Pugwash Conferences – international meetings between global scientists which kept a line of communication open between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and helped develop frameworks for international treaties on weapons of mass destruction.

Case study: Ukraine

The global science community’s response to the war in Ukraine is another example of “Track II diplomacy” – science as a form of parallel diplomacy, where global science resources are mobilised to resolve conflict, explains Mathieu Denis, Senior Director of the new ISC Centre for Science Futures .

In 2020, the ISC partnered with the InterAcademy Partnership and the World Academy of Sciences to coordinate a global response to support scientists displaced by conflict, including the Syrian civil war – the Science in Exile initiative. The network was mobilised again when the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 2021, and in February 2022 in response to the war in Ukraine. That’s when the project “took on a different dimension,” Denis says.

In such cases, the ISC does not expel member organization – but rather mobilize its resources to safeguard scientific collaboration, preserve science systems, and support refugee and displaced scientists. The ISC convened a biweekly call with international organizations working with refugee and displaced scientists, to share information, strategize and avoid duplication of work. This led to a June 2022 meeting, where scientists from around the world met to solidify a seven-point action plan to support scientists caught up in crises.

One year on: Statements, offers of assistance and resources on the current war in Ukraine

Conference on the Ukraine Crisis: Responses from the European Higher Education and Research Sectors

One of the key outcomes of those meetings was maintaining open communication between people working on the same problem – a valuable diplomatic effort by itself, Denis explains. But the work also led to a long-term, practical policy change to help scientists in conflict areas: global academic publishing industry organization, STM, said it would abolish fees for Ukrainian institutions, and for scientists in other conflict areas going forward. “There is a role for all of us. We can all act and do something in our organizations,” Denis says.

Groundwork laid during the Syrian crisis was crucial to later work on Ukraine, he explains. By developing a playbook and a global network of experts, and keeping track of what works and what needs to be changed for next time, the international science community can respond quickly and more efficiently to the next crises. 

Learning from the Ukraine crisis

The Polish Academy of Sciences has been a key player in global efforts to keep Ukrainian scientists safe and ensure the continuity of their work. Magdalena Sajdak, Director of the Polish Academy of Sciences Scientific Center in Paris, told Members about the Academy’s grants , programs and other efforts, which have helped hundreds of displaced scientists. 

Throughout this work, Sajdak says the Polish Academy has had another major priority: preventing a brain drain of Ukrainian scientists that would hinder post-war recovery. In a conflict situation, one country’s loss is often another’s gain, as highly skilled scientists flee their home country and pick up their work elsewhere.

Encouraging voluntary repatriation of scientists, when it becomes safe to return, is one of the ISC Science in Exile recommendations – a vital part of ensuring countries can maintain thriving national scientific systems and meet sustainable development goals. This was also a priority noted in a 2022 joint declaration signed by the ALLEA European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities and other national academies, which listed maintaining institutional affiliations for displaced scientists as its top recommendation to achieve this goal. 

“After the war, who is going to teach at the universities?” Sajdak asks. That’s why the Polish Academy’s recent call for grant applications from war-affected Ukrainian researchers emphasised that Ukrainian recipients will be able to maintain their affiliations at home institutions while working in Poland – a small step that could have major implications for Ukraine’s future. 

How a more inclusive scientific landscape benefits everyone

When taking on these problems, it’s important for the global scientific community to draw on knowledge from regions that have experience dealing with conflict and uncertainty, recommends Ava Thompson, Secretary General of the International Union of Psychological Science, who spoke at the ISC Meeting in Paris.

“We appreciate the new global consciousness that is marked by polycrises and associated challenges – but we approach it using lessons from Small Island Developing States, and other majority world contexts, where this feature of life is unfortunately normative,” explains Thompson, who is also the Founding President of the Caribbean Alliance of National Psychological Associations.

Scientists from these areas are “typically on the periphery of the scientific, geopolitical, and economic landscapes,” she notes – even though these states are often an “early and reliable bellwether” for trends that concern the whole world, like climate change.

“Maximising scientific diplomacy requires decentering our gaze from traditional and contemporary centres, to create a more inclusive scientific landscape,” Thompson says. 

Stay up to date with our newsletters

Sign up to ISC Monthly to receive key updates from the ISC and the broader scientific community, and check out our more specialized niche newsletters on Open Science, Science at the UN, and more.

• Policy, government
• Business, industry
• ISC MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
• Centre for Science Futures
• Science for Disaster Risk Reduction
• Science at the UN community updates
• Open science round-up
• ISC Job Alerts
• Regional updates: Latin America and the Caribbean
• Regional updates: Africa
• Regional updates: Asia Pacific
• Early and Mid-Career Researchers
• You have my consent to email me

Image by Jason Gardner .

Related Items

Official launch of the idrc and isc project to explore ai's impact on science systems in the global south.

International Science Council Statement on the occasion of the United Nations International Day of Living Together in Peace

Contextualizing open science

ISC and the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs awarded joint grant to support the Biological Weapons Convention

INGSA 2024: Science advisors of the world united

Asia and the Pacific call for better science advice links to government

Plastic Treaty negotiations must prioritize health

Unlocking the Future: A Guide for Policy-makers: Evaluating Rapidly Developing Technologies Including AI, Large Language Models and Beyond

publications

A guide for policy-makers: evaluating rapidly developing technologies including ai, large language models and beyond, lighthouse funding programmes for sustainability research and innovation .

Disaster risk reduction: UNDRR and ISC to review Hazard Information Profiles ahead of 2025 Global Platform

Science organizations in the digital age

Putting science on the agenda for post-crisis recovery

Pacific Islands Academy of Sciences and Humanities: A Pivotal Step Towards a Resilient Future

Establishment of the ISC expert group on plastic pollution

Science in Times of Crisis: Lessons from Fukushima and WWII

Crisis-ready science: a framework for proactive and resilient sector

President of the International Science Council, Sir Peter Gluckman, addresses EU Ministers

Achieving sustainable development requires the full inclusion of women and girls in science

Assessing the support offered to displaced Ukrainian scientists

Engaging young and early-career scientists in the science-policy interface

Early-career researchers' insights on climate

Science reading list from the International Science Council

Readers' choice: our most shared science blogs this year

The International Science Council appoints 100 new Fellows to help advance its vision of science as a global public good 

Next-level collaboration to advance African science in a global context

Working together for and with early-career researchers

COP28 agreement: embracing the urgency of the scientific consensus?

Global Science Leaders ISC and IAP Issue Joint Statement on Protecting the Autonomy of National Academies of Science

"What's holding us back?": how economists and social scientists might hold the key to climate action

For science-based decision-making on the climate emergency: 10 new insights in climate science

Podcast with Qiufan Chen: Science Fiction and the Future of Science: Values and Senses in Artificial Intelligence 

Podcast with Fernanda Trías: Science Fiction and the Future of Science: Lessons from an Eco-Dystopia

Researcher Assessment: ISC Members invited to respond to global survey by 15 December

Scientific communication: Join the Ethnografilm festival for a filmmaking experience in Paris

Podcast with Vandana Singh: Science Fiction and the Future of Science: Data, Narrative, and Transdisciplinarity

Policy Brief: Global Sea-Level Rise

The costs of shifting scenarios: Why the IPCC should maintain consistent vocabulary in climate assessments

New ISC policy brief: A call for a formal scientific voice in the global fight against plastic pollution

Converging and interdependent crises are amplifying the impacts of one another with often devastating consequences

FAO and the International Science Council join forces to strengthen science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems

UNESCO 42nd General Conference Global Policy Debate 

Podcast with Karen Lord: Science Fiction and the Future of Science: Long-Term Thinking in Policy-making

Reframing Trust in Science for Multilateral Policy: Insights from the Science Journalists Forum

Policy Brief: Creating a Strong Interface between Science, Policy and Society to Tackle Global Plastic Pollution

Pan-african collaborative avenues for strengthening african science.

One Planet Polar Summit, scientists striving to bridge the science-policy gap for urgent action: "every tenth of a degree Celsius matters"

Bridging the trust gap: scientific freedom and responsibility in Asia-Pacific

Science Fiction and the Future of Science

Podcast with Kim Stanley Robinson: Science as a political and ethical project

Reviving public trust in science: new practices for 21st-century challenges

A call to action to all Members and Member networks in Africa

One world, one climate: a planetary call to action

A framework for evaluating rapidly developing digital and related technologies: AI, large language models and beyond

The dual burden of inequality and disaster-risk

Transforming science for sustainability: the ISC's impact at the 2023 SDG Summit

Sudan at risk of losing a generation of scientific talents

Catalyzing transformative change: science, academia, and the journey to 2030

Surviving war, sustaining science: how Ukrainian research carries on

"The making of the Golden Record of our century": daring to pursue mission-oriented science

To achieve sustainable development, the world needs to mobilize around a big science approach once more 

Leveraging science for sustainable development

Pairing science and action: Can young scientists reshape science now?

Indigenous Environmental Defenders are critical for nature and for science, but face serious risk

One year of war in Ukraine: exploring the impact on the science sector and supporting initiatives

Global science needs a new approach to tackle climate change and complex sustainability question

INGSA announces annual essay competition for Latin America and the Caribbean

The ISC addresses the UN High Level Political Forum and meets with the UN Secretary General

Call for nominations: The ISC is seeking Members for the Advisory Council of the Regional Focal Point for Asia and the Pacific

Science and Climate feature at the High Level Political Forum

Science Driving Transformation: the 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report

Flipping the Science Model: A Roadmap to Science Missions for Sustainability

A Model for Implementing Mission Science for Sustainability: proposed by the Technical Advisory Group to the Global Commission on Science Missions for Sustainability

Attacks on Environmental Scientists: Implications for the Free and Responsible Practice of Science 

Position paper for the 2023 High-Level Political Forum

The World Academy of Sciences celebrates its 40th year

Challenges to Science-Policy-Society Interactions in Transdisciplinary Research

“Transformations are Possible, and Inevitable”: GSDR 2023

Trapped in Limbo: Why Refugees Are Remaining Displaced for Longer

Unveiling the health benefits of forests and trees

From Authoritarian Threats to Funding Disparities: Key Challenges in Global Science

Closing remarks by Irina Bokova, ISC Patron, at the Mid-term Meeting of Members

Trust in Science: Episode 6 of the ISC Podcast Series on Freedom and Responsibility in Science in the 21st Century

Mobilizing Science for Global Progress: ISC Members and the Multilateral System

Emerging Technologies: Episode 5 of the ISC Podcast Series on Freedom and Responsibility in Science in the 21st Century

Promoting Free and Responsible Science: Insights from the ISC Mid-term Meeting

Salvatore Aricò on science advice at the United Nations

The Role of the State: Episode 4 of the ISC Podcast Series on Freedom and Responsibility in Science in the 21st Century

Rising to the challenge of the High-Level Meeting on the Sendai Framework: Insights from the ISC's latest disaster risk reduction report

Nurturing a Sustainable Future: Collaboration, Empowerment, Trust, and Resilience in Science at the ISC Mid-term Members Meeting

From Antarctica to Space: updates from Affiliated Bodies on Day 3 of ISC Mid-term meeting

Science Communication: Episode 3 of the ISC Podcast Series on Freedom and Responsibility in Science in the 21st Century

Unprecedented and Unfinished, Second Edition

Unlocking sustainable development in focus on Day 2 of ISC Mid-term meeting

Guiding the Future of Science: introducing the Centre for Science Futures

ISC Mid-term meeting explores the many crises affecting science

The Future of Research Evaluation: A Synthesis of Current Debates and Developments

Scientific autonomy: Episode 2 of the ISC Podcast Series on Freedom and Responsibility in Science in the 21st Century

ISC Statement on Nicaragua

ISC podcast series on Freedom and Responsibility in science in the 21st century

Statement on concerns over escalation of extreme violence in Sudan

Creation of a Group of Friends on Science for Action at the UN

Group of Friends to champion Science for Action

ISC's nomination track ensures transdisciplinary and global representation in UNEP's Scientific Advisory Group for GEO-7 Assessment

ISC Regional Focal Point for Latin America and the Caribbean gathers its Liaison Committee for the first in-person meeting

The International Science Council welcomes 15 Young Academies and Associations

UN International Day of Solidarity with Detained and Missing Staff Members – CFRS and SAR call for release of Niloufar Bayani

UN 2023 Water Conference carries new engagements towards realizing SDG6 and future avenues for a decade of action

IPCC report: the world must cut emissions and urgently adapt to the new climate realities

Second conference on the war in Ukraine: exploring the impact on the science sector and supporting initiatives  

ISC-BBC StoryWorks partnership ends on a high note, delivering some of the highest engagement for the BBC

Achieving gender equality in Science, Technology and Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)– when will we get there?

Science policy advice in times of crisis

World is set to miss UN targets for preventing deadly and costly disasters by 2030, warns International Science Council

Report for the mid-term review of the sendai framework for disaster risk reduction.

Hybrid event: How to evaluate and reduce the gender gap in science?

Statement on the earthquake in Türkiye and Syria

2023 Mid-term Meeting of ISC Members: Capitalizing on Synergies in Science

Concern for science and research in Afghanistan following authorities' ban on women from higher education

Statements, offers of assistance and resources on the scholars in Afghanistan

‘No problem is too big’ – Combating discrimination in geospatial science

New year's message to ISC Members from ISC President Peter Gluckman

International Science Council deplores the exclusion of women from university education in Afghanistan and urges the Afghan authorities to reverse their decision

Episode 5 - preventing crisis: science diplomacy and track two organizations.

Episode 4 - Rebuilding Mosul’s 'Lighthouse of Knowledge’

Concern over ongoing legal proceedings against the Greek economist and statistician Andreas Georgiou

Science in Times of Crisis Episode 3 - The Fallout of Conflict: The Arctic and Outer Space

New report reveals professional challenges, preferences and plans of Ukrainian researchers abroad

Science in Times of Crisis Episode 2 - The Current Clash: Science and the National Interest.

Global Knowledge Dialogue held in South Africa a grand success

ISC appoints new Fellows to support its mission to bring science to society 

The International Science Council at the World Science Forum

Science in Times of Crisis Episode 1 - What can we learn from history?

The state of HIV/AIDS research in Africa: An interview with Dr. Joyce Nyoni for World AIDS Day

New from the ISC Presents podcast: Science in Times of Crisis

Science in Times of Crisis

Cop27 ends with commitment on financial support.

Free to Think 2022

Scientists and scientific organizations need to play a greater role in science diplomacy

A new ISC regional presence in the Asia-Pacific Region to be established at the Australian Academy of Science

Poverty - or the death of Zaw Lin Oo

Disaster Risk Reduction Day 2022: better to prepare than repair

The scientific community can support the call for decisive action at COP27

ISC Standing Committees announced for 2022-2025

An extract from Peter Gluckman's speech to the Endless Frontier Symposium

Safeguarding science in the wake of conflict

ISC and partners release report on the Ukraine Crisis, highlighting seven key recommendations for the international community to better support science systems affected by conflict

Latest publication highlights from the international science council.

Science and society: key points from our Science as a Global Public Good paper

New cooperation initiatives from the ISC's Latin America and Caribbean Regional Focal Point

International Youth Day: An invitation for eligible Young Academies and Associations to join the International Science Council

COVID-19 & the Social Sciences Webinar Series

ISC Members invited to participate in mapping scientific breakthroughs with GESDA

WorldFAIR: Global cooperation on FAIR data policy and practice – Kick-Off Meeting introduces major new initiative to advance implementation of the FAIR data principles

New podcasts on Systems Science from the Urban Health & Wellbeing programme

Position paper of the Scientific and Technological Community Major Group for the 2022 High-level Political Forum

An invitation for eligible Young Academies and Associations to join the International Science Council as Affiliated Members

Collaborating for the long term - peter gluckman on the ukrainian crisis, call for nominations: scientific committee of the urban health and wellbeing programme.

International Science Council appoints 66 Foundation Fellows who have made exceptional contributions to the role of science as a global public good

Cycling towards sustainable development

Science in Exile Declaration is a call to action

Living Together in Peace: the United Republic of Tanzania, an icon of hope

Halt the execution of Dr. Ahmadreza Djalali

Vaccine promotion remains a key focus for this year’s Day of Immunology

Multilateralism and Diplomacy: Focus on the East African Community

International science organizations unite in support of at-risk, displaced and refugee scientists

Science in Exile: Supporting displaced, refugee and at-risk scientists

Spotlight on Science in Exile

A call to ISC Members: how to assist displaced Ukrainian scholars

The climate crisis is a health crisis

Joint letter to ISC Members from ISC President, Peter Gluckman, and Acting CEO, Mathieu Denis

Isc joins scholars at risk.

Worldwide celebrations of geography on GeoNight 2022

Combating predatory journals and conferences through systemic change in scientific publishing

Video tutorials on science ethics and science communication

Forests, Trees and Poverty Alleviation in Africa

Statement on concerns for scientists in Iran

Launch of the UNESCO "Mathematics for Action" toolkit

International Women's Day Celebrations - March 8, 2022

Principles and Structures of Science Advice: An outline

International Science Council Statement on Ukraine

Heide hackmann to step down as ceo of international science council.

Celebrating World Pulses Day 2022

Call for nominations: Members for the Liaison Committee of the ISC Regional Focal Point for the Latin American and Caribbean Region

How to celebrate International Day of Women and Girls in Science - 2022

ISC nominees selected for new IPBES Assessments

Membership knowledge sharing platform

Launch of a new ISC regional presence in Latin America and the Caribbean

The seven warmest years on record were the last seven

Global Women's Breakfast 2022

INGSA Horizons podcast hosts conversations on the science informing smart policy

The Paris Agreement is working as intended, but we’ve still got a long way to go

An early career perspective on the science-policy interface in the decade of climate action following COP26

Our most popular stories from 2021

Moving into the second year of the International Year of Caves and Karst (2021 – 2022)

ISC report highlights how researchers combat new threats to key human rights

A contemporary perspective on the free and responsible practice of science in the 21st century

Support dr. ahmadreza djalali to protect scientific freedom and responsibility.

The scientific knowledge being lost to conflict

World Philosophy Day: Addressing science scepticism requires a stronger understanding of the philosophy of science

Convening the scientific knowledge required to boost climate action

Amplifying the voices of at-risk, displaced and refugee scientists

World Science Day for Peace and Development: supporting at-risk, displaced and refugee scientists.

Four considerations for accelerating progress on climate change at the science-policy interface

Science in Exile podcast: Syrian political scientist Radwan Ziadeh on continuing human rights research and activism across borders

Strengthening research integrity: The role and responsibilities of publishing

Reforming publishing for more research integrity

Science in exile podcast: phyu phyu thin zaw on the crisis facing medics and scientists in myanmar.

Members of International Science Council commit to work for change in scientific publishing, and endorse eight principles for reform

Science in Exile podcast: Early-career scientist Eqbal Dauqan shares her story of leaving Yemen to continue her research overseas

Daya Reddy highlights importance of core values of science at close of 2nd ISC General Assembly

Science in Exile podcast: Alfred Babo shares his story of being an at-risk and refugee social scientist

Ten outstanding individual scientists and organizations celebrated in first ever ISC Awards

Science as a Global Public Good

Science in Exile podcast: how research by one displaced social scientist is uncovering the realities of labour market integration for highly skilled migrants

Action for Afghan scientists and scholars

Science in Exile podcast series launched

Defending scientific integrity in Greece and beyond

Indigenous inclusion in the science-policy sphere requires more than symbolic gestures: interview with meg parsons.

A new social contract must include genuine participation and partnership of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about research

What we are reading

Academic Challenges in the COVID-19 Era: Compounding Difficulties for Arab Scholars

Free to Think: The Scholars At Risk monitoring project September 2020-August 2021

Steering Committee appointed for the Science in Exile project

Refugee and displaced scientists: A willingness to do more

Universities’ relevance hinges on academic freedom

Position paper for 2021 HLPF

Protecting scientific freedoms to combat the COVID-19 pandemic

From industrial processing plants to local food preservation.

Introducing a new Member of the ISC: International Society for Porous Media (InterPore)

Science in Exile project enters a new phase

Introducing a new Member of the ISC: Eötvös Loránd Research Network (ELKH), Hungary

Statement on protecting scientific freedoms for Turkish scientists

Statement on concerns for scientific freedom around the world, a ‘new normality’ needed for post-pandemic peace.

Introducing a new Member of the ISC: Somali Natural Resource Research Center (SONRREC)

An Introduction to the International Year of Caves and Karst (2021 - 2022)

2021 Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the SDGs: amplifying STI for a sustainable and resilient COVID-19 recovery

Extended: International Year of Sound (2020 – 2021)

COVID-19 has sparked new relationships between academia and policymakers – we must maintain them

CFRS Current projects

Ethnografilm will return to Paris in 2022 for a festival of non-fiction film

Lessons learned from Covid-19 for the Science-Policy-Society Interface

Nominations sought for the Interim Steering Committee of the Science in Exile project

What would a 3°C warmer world mean for Australia?

Statement on protecting human rights and scientific freedom in Myanmar

Showing solidarity for detained and missing scientists, international day of forests - forest restoration: a path to recovery and well-being.

Mathematics for a better world

Celebrating women scientists on International Women's Day, and every day

Results: The ISC Survey on the first draft of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science

World Engineering Day - science and engineering are key partners in building a sustainable future

Working scientist podcast: Gender, sexuality and representation

The Scientific and Technological Community Major Group reviews ECOSOC and HLPF

Introducing a new Member of the ISC: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

A common language for interdisciplinary work in lighting science and application

Join the IUFoST discussion on Resilient and Sustainable Food Systems (3 February 2021)

World Logic Day, 14 January

IAU Online Initiatives - Together Through Astronomy

Science International Refugee and Displaced Scientists project takes shape

Online event series for ISC Members and ISC affiliated bodies: Knowledge Sharing Sessions

Standing up for science this Human Rights Day and every day

International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing releases report

Planned execution of disaster medicine scholar Ahmadreza Djalali must be halted immediately

Statement on scientific freedom in japan, what are your latest findings and strategies to address the covid-19 crisis, including for vaccine deployment.

A Partnership for Displaced Scientists

Introducing new Member of the ISC: The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia

Global Young Academy promote sustainable solutions to problems within global health and higher education

Science International initiates workshops for new refugee and displaced scientists project

Transforming research in Latin American and the Caribbean

Open with purpose for international open access week

Strong response to ISC members' consultation on the future of scientific publishing

Call for nominations: isc awards programme.

The future of scientific publishing under the spotlight for ISC member organizations in Europe

World’s first high-level science initiative dedicated to the survival of the Amazon

The ISC supports urgent appeals for conservation biologists imprisoned in Iran

Freedom & Responsibility in Science: Statements & Resources

Humanity cannot afford a COVID‑19 patent battle

Lessons from existing disaster risk and recovery research should inform equitable and sustainable pathways out of the pandemic

Global Science TV: Thinking big about the future of society

Statistical thinking as an essential skill for reading the news

ISC experts appointed to the COVID-Education Alliance (COVIDEA)

Global Science TV: The facts about airborne transmission

Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Liaison Committee appointed to strengthen links with the SIDS scientific community

Crystallographers unite to tackle coronavirus

Freedom and responsibility in science in the 21st century

ShutdownSTEM

New project launched that proposes a coordinated response to the increasing number of displaced researchers

Ethical responsibilities of scientists at a time of a global threat.

Special Episode: Big questions to big thinkers - Ismail Serageldin

Celebrating scientific collaboration through the ages

Statement on combating systemic racism and other forms of discrimination

Membership Noticeboard

Introducing new member of the ISC: The Korean Academy of Science and Technology

How to become a Member

ISC Membership

Important message for ISC members in Latin America and the Caribbean

Keep us up-to-date

Introducing new member of the ISC, the Global Young Academy

Science can support effective policymaking by providing the best available knowledge

Letter to ISC members from Daya Reddy regarding the COVID-19 pandemic

Science in times of crisis

INGSA launches Policy-Making Tracker and calls for global volunteers

Introducing new member of the ISC, the Society for the Advancement of Science in Africa

Introducing new member of the ISC, Bilim Akademisi

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences - led by women, advancing women

Regional consultative meetings: information for ISC Members

Committee for Freedom and Responsibility in Science

Statement on Dr Ahmadreza Djalali, currently incarcerated and sentenced to death in Iran

Isc showcases academic freedom and inter- and transdisciplinary research at sida science days.

Official Statement by the Scientific and Technological Community (STC) Major Group Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2019, Geneva, Switzerland

Science and Policy Forum underscores need for collaboration across science, policy makers and society for success in disaster risk reduction

ISC launches policy briefs ahead of the UN Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction (GP2019)

Achieving Risk Reduction Across Sendai, Paris And The SDGs

Disaster loss data in monitoring the implementation of the sendai framework.

World Science Forum on Science, Ethics and Responsibility invites session proposals

Science Advice for a Changing World: Highlights from INGSA2018

Public launch event of the Council explores values of science and links between science, politics and society

Science International: at-risk researchers

The International Social Science Council, 1952 - 2018

Global biodiversity continues to decline, according to new reports from IPBES

The origins of the IPCC: How the world woke up to climate change

World Urban Forum ends with Kuala Lumpur Declaration

The United Nations proclaims the International Year of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements

The state of biodiversity in the regions: What to expect from the IPBES in 2018

Highlights of 2017

Why 2018 is a big year for global environmental assessments

IAMAS urges United States to continue support of Earth Observation systems

World science forum 2017 jordan issues declaration on science for peace.

COP23 side event on climate change- when and where will habitability limits be reached?

ICSU Committee issues statement on the importance of science for peace

Largest Ever Science Gathering in the Middle East for World Science Forum 2017

Future of Science: Voices from our partners

Future of science: Voices from our partners

Advisory note: responsibilities for preventing, avoiding, and mitigating harm to researchers undertaking fieldwork in risky settings, early career scientists gather for lira trans-disciplinary workshop in uganda.

Focus on Interactions: Second Nexus Conference Announced for 2018

New report from scientific experts provides a unique guide to translate Sustainable Development Goals into reality

A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to Implementation

Icsu at the u.n. ocean conference.

Responsible science

How the Committee works to protect science & human rights

Freedoms and Responsibilities in Science

Displaced scientists – an untapped resource?

Making a case for science at the United Nations

All ISC Members

International Council for Science issues an advisory note on the issue of gender-based harassment in the practice of science

Icsu at habitat iii: science, cities and visualization.

International experts submit report on Future of the Seas and Oceans to G7 Science and Technology Ministers meeting in Japan

Icsu cfrs welcomes acquittal of heinz richter, advisory note: mobility and field research in the sciences: gender equality and prevention of harassment, advisory note: science communication (2010/2016), former icsu president jane lubchenco awarded tyler prize for environmental achievement for work in changing policy, international symposium on science assessment and research integrity, review of targets for the sustainable development goals: the science perspective (2015), global conference on science advice to governments, cfrs supports scientists whose human rights are under threat as a result of scientific activity, more than 1,000 delegates gather in geneva for talks on global disaster risk reduction agreement.

Call for nominations: ICSU Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science

Invitation to icsu members to host the cfrs secretariat, open access to scientific data and literature and the assessment of research by metrics, work plan for the committee on freedom and responsibility in the conduct of science (cfrs) 2014-2017, un supports call for an international science advisory mechanism on disaster risk reduction, freedom, responsibility and universality of science (2014).

CFRS concerned by mounting pressures on academic freedom

World social science report 2013: changing global environments.

ICSU supports the independence of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Scientists meet at the un for expert group meeting on sustainable development goals, icsu co-sponsors 3rd world conference on research integrity, organisation of international scientific meetings: recommendations from icsu policy committee, industry-academia partnerships, recommendations from the forum on science, technology and innovation at rio+20, the international council for science pledges support for scientists in the l’aquila case, icsu paper on the sustainable development goals (sdgs) published by nature, icsu-unesco regional science and technology workshops for rio+20, advisory note on academia-industry partnerships (2012), icsu president gives statement at rio+20, forum on science, technology and innovation for sustainable development prior to rio+20, intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (ipbes) to meet in panama, icsu foresight analysis peer-reviewed, advisory note on access to shared data to reduce global inequality, rio+20 policy briefs released by the gec programmes, advisory note on sharing scientific data, with a focus on developing countries, a science plan for integrated research on disaster risk, advisory note "access and benefit sharing (abs) system", advisory note on bias in science publishing, world social science report 2010: knowledge divides.

Review of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

Ecosystem change and human wellbeing, global scientific community affirms its shared responsibilities for the integrity of science and its role in society, statement: promoting the integrity of science and the scientific record, statement: publication practices and indices and the role of peer review in research assessment, review of the scientific committee on problems of the environment, the scope of science for the international polar year 2007-2008, icsu and climate science (2006), back to the future: 75 years of international scientific collaboration, responding to new threats to scientific freedom, icsu revises and reaffirms commitment to the 'universality of science', harnessing science, technology and innovation for sustainable development (2005), science in the information society: policy issues for scientific information (2003), science in the information society: optimizing knowledge (2003), science in the information society: decision making and governance (2003), science in the information society: universal access to scientific knowledge (2003), icsu takes action against restrictions to 'freedom in the conduct of science', rainbow series on science for sustainable development (2002).

VIEW ALL RELATED ITEMS

https://council.science/current/blog/mitigating-crisis-the-power-of-science-diplomacy/">

• Disclaimer: The translations are automatically generated by Google Translate and may contain errors. The ISC is not liable for any damage or issues that may arise from these translations. You can provide your feedback by emailing us at [email protected] Note: Please note that the ‘Science Summit at the UN General Assembly’ in September 2023 is not an event of the International Science Council. The International Science Council has no association with this event nor with the organizer of the event.

Privacy Overview

June 12, 2018

Could Science Diplomacy Be the Key to Stabilizing International Relations?

As a common and apolitical language, science brings allies and adversaries together with technology and innovation to address cross-border challenges

By Paul Arthur Berkman & The Conversation US

Kevin Lim Getty Images

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation , an online publication covering the latest research.

It’s no secret that United States–Russia relations are currently rife with tension and mistrust. The news is full of reports of Russia meddling in U.S. elections, seeding U.S. media with fake news, supporting the Syrian regime and so on.

The relationship between the two countries has reached an all-time low since the fall of the Soviet Union, with some going so far  as to call it  a  new “cold war.”  Diplomats have been unable to mend the relationship, as national security interests on each side are too narrow to provide common ground.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

But there are avenues of collaboration beyond the security realm that can help to balance strained relationships, maintain open channels of communication and build trust, enabling a more positive diplomatic process overall.

One key avenue is science. As a common and apolitical language, science brings allies and adversaries together with technology and innovation to address cross-border challenges that exist across the Earth—think climate, disease pandemics and international trade—which are out of reach for a single nation to address alone.

Since the 1950s, the U.S. and Russia have been cooperating continuously in a four specific  international spaces  – the high seas, Antarctica, outer space and deep sea—and the mechanism for cooperation has consistently been science. For instance, they cooperate on the 1959  Antarctic Treaty , which preserves the continent for peaceful purposes as the first nuclear arms agreement with scientific research as the basis for international cooperation. Similarly, in space, collaboration between the U.S. and the Soviet Union on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 led to the design of an international docking system, creating a physical bridge for subsequent operations and joint experiments that we see with the  International Space Station  today.

The term “science diplomacy” is recently coined, with the  first book in this new field  emerging from the 2009  Antarctic Treaty Summit . But this diplomatic approach has long existed in practice.  As both an academic who studies science diplomacy  and a practitioner who implements it, I suggest that science can help bridge contemporary political differences between the superpowers as well as other actors, promoting cooperation and preventing conflict across the world.

A different avenue for diplomacy

People usually think of diplomacy as how states represent themselves and negotiate to advance their own interests. These are the fraught high-level talks between nations that are featured on newspapers’ front pages. Diplomats on each side angle and negotiate to come out on top of a particular issue with political expediency. Picture the sit-down in Singapore between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

Science diplomacy is different, operating across a continuum of urgencies from political to sustainability time scales. Nations are still coming together to discuss and resolve cross-border issues. But what’s on the table revolves around common interests revealed across generations by science—including natural sciences and social sciences as well as indigenous knowledge—providing a foundation for negotiation that is far less politically charged and divisive to discuss and resolve the topics of the day.

For example, countries came together to share resources and design a joint response to two recent pandemics:  Zika in Latin America  and  Ebola in West Africa . Following the easing of U.S.-Cuba relations in December 2014, scientists from the two countries began to  collaborate on cancer research .

Science diplomacy also supports economic prosperity, balancing environmental protection and societal well-being through innovation. Countries are sharing and collaborating on technologies that will help transition resource-based economies to knowledge-based economies. This kind of cooperation can yield poverty-alleviating solutions along with progress across a suite of  sustainable development goals .

Science diplomacy is also about contributing to informed decision-making by sharing evidence and options, without advocacy. This kind of exchange helps ensure the diplomatic process is objective and inclusive, relying on our leaders to make decisions that have legacy value. Imagine if a group of diplomats got together in a negotiating room to assess and design a response to a pandemic without consulting and involving medical and public health experts. It wouldn’t make sense. The recent  Iran nuclear deal , for instance, relied on scientists’ expertise to build common interests among nations as the prelude for an agreement, providing an ongoing basis for cooperation despite political variability.

Collaboration between scientists from different countries can help create pathways for working together on controversial issues, more generally. For example,  SESAME  is the Middle East’s first major international research center. It’s designed to host both Israeli and Palestinian scientists. Instead of career diplomats and statesmen focused on pushing national agendas, researchers and practitioners with particular scientific expertise are focusing on research to address shared questions, divorced from politics. The  CERN  particle accelerators in Europe have demonstrated the value of this kind of scientific collaboration among nations since the 1950s.

And with cooperation and trust among scientists from diverse nations, there can be a ripple effect of goodwill between the nations involved, including agreements that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to negotiate at the time with any hope of continuity.

An Arctic environment example

My own involvement with U.S.-Russia relations started with chairing the first formal dialogue between NATO and Russia regarding  environmental security in the Arctic Ocean . This 2010 dialogue at the University of Cambridge was funded by NATO along with other organizations and co-directed with the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. It involved four Russian ministries with representative to the president of Russia as well as experts and senior diplomats from 16 other nations.

As academics, my Russian colleagues and I were able to create an apolitical platform for a conversation that had never taken place.  Matters related to military security  had otherwise prevented open consideration of strategies  to promote cooperation and prevent conflict  around the North Pole, which remains a region of significant strategic interest with nuclear submarines. Here, science diplomacy brought together two long-estranged actors to productively address a security issue of common interest to both.

Since 2009, and despite ongoing diplomatic tensions, the U.S. and Russia have co-chaired three task forces under the auspices of the Arctic Council, the region’s intergovernmental forum for sustainable development and environmental protection. And they’ve successfully led to  three binding legal agreements  among all eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, along with Russia and the U.S.

The most recent agreement just came into force in May 2018 to  enhance international Arctic scientific cooperation . It reflects an understanding among these nations: International scientific collaboration is essential to pursue sustainable solutions, transcending national interests to maintain peace, stability and constructive cooperation in the Arctic.  Science diplomacy offers a route that works both politically and practically .

International agreements, without politics

Science is a neutral platform that allows for less politically charged dialogues, which in turn create bridges that help overall diplomatic efforts.

Over the years, science diplomacy has helped build common ground and peacefully manage international spaces, as well as achieve technological breakthroughs that have global relevance, from health care to the digital revolution. There is every reason for science to continue helping to maintain important channels of communication in the face of current tensions and all yet to come.

For today’s globally interconnected and growing civilization, which is confronting rapid transformation on the back of advances in science, technology and innovation, science diplomacy offers a unique process to build  our common future .

This article was originally published on The Conversation . Read the original article .

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

What Is a Science Diplomat?

The COVID -19 crisis has shown how countries initially responded to a global challenge on their own, instead of relying on a multilateral science diplomacy — based response. Although, science diplomacy has received great attention for the past decade, its meaning and the nature of the diverse practitioners involved remain elusive. Science diplomacy is a transboundary field sitting across national borders, policy frameworks and stakeholders of all natures and professional backgrounds. But what is a science diplomat? What science diplomacy roles formally exist? Who can become a science diplomat? What knowledge and skills are required? This practitioner’s essay proposes a typology of science diplomacy practitioners who bring science, technology, innovation, foreign policy and the international political system altogether closer in either institutionalised or non-institutionalised roles, and it also provides guidance for pursuing a career in science diplomacy. These science diplomats may promote national competitiveness but also facilitate multilateral responses to global challenges.

1 Introduction 1

The COVID -19 outbreak has caused a profound global public health and socio-economic crisis. Although an intense international scientific collaboration has occurred to tackle the pandemic, 2 national governments have failed in co-ordinating an immediate multilateral response. This global challenge has brought the interface between science, policy and diplomacy to the spotlight, with science informing governments and facilitating diplomatic collaborations. However, different interface frictions, system deficiencies and stoppers have hindered a science diplomacy — based multilateral response that could have ameliorated this situation. 3 This has occurred even with the field of science diplomacy ( SD ) receiving bigger attention since the Barack Obama administration’s new diplomacy approach in the Middle East and the seminal conference by the Royal Society of London and the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( AAAS ) in 2009. 4 The European Union has also contributed, with Commissioner Carlos Moedas implementing SD as an important dimension in his Open to the World policy. 5 Yet the concrete meaning of SD and the nature of the wide range of practitioners involved remain elusive. Hence, two questions follow.

First, what is science diplomacy ? There are different SD conceptualisations, 6 with the Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy describing it as ‘a series of practices at the intersection of science, technology and foreign policy’. 7 SD is a transboundary field sitting across: 1) national borders, entailing bilateral or multilateral relationships; 2) policy frameworks, combining the policy realms of science, technology, innovation and foreign affairs — each with clear-cut definitions of competencies, actors and levels — and establishing complex and fluid interactions with joint jurisdictions; 3) stakeholders of all natures, involving government actors as well as international organisations, scientific institutions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector and so forth; and 4) professional backgrounds, because it bridges two cultures with different world views: the scientist and the diplomat. 8

Second, what is a science diplomat ? What do they do? These questions were asked innumerable times during the author’s three-year assignment as Science Adviser at the Spanish Embassy in London. They have been asked as often since his return to Spain. May these lines serve as tribute to Robert L. Loftness who, using similar words, so started his Why Science Attachés? 9 article, written 65 years ago to explain the role of scientists at embassies and advocate their positive impact.

First, from a practitioner’s perspective, this essay attempts to define and profile different science diplomats. Next, it introduces the required SD knowledge and skills. Finally, it explains certain challenges and recommendations for those interested in pursuing a career in SD .

2 The Science Diplomat: Definition and Taxonomy

SD is a complex space where professionals with different backgrounds gather to build collaborations and potentially seek common interests. On one side are scientists who may be active researchers taking some responsibilities as advisers or diplomats to build international partnerships and influence or represent their nation’s interest (the diplomat scientist ); on the other are diplomats who have specialised in science, technology and innovation ( STI ) affairs (the scientist diplomat ). 10 These are two well-defined professions that sporadically, or for a certain time, may take responsibilities in addition to their traditional ones (e.g., conducting research and innovation in the case of scientists; representing their country, defending national interests, supporting expatriates and building international relationships following the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) in the case of diplomats). A third figure comprises different actors — civil servants, embassy staff, science/policy managers, innovation delegates, liaison officers, policy scientists and so forth — whose professional task is mediating between science and diplomacy, providing support to the aforementioned figures or even leading/implementing their own actions and institutional strategies. These professionals have become full-time SD specialists.

Science diplomats could be widely defined as professionals — be they scientists or diplomats — who work to place STI affairs as an important dimension within international relations and the international policy system. Because SD transcends international scientific co-operation, science diplomats not only connect scientists working in different countries to establish collaborations, but especially strive to connect scientists with diplomats, government officials and political leaders to raise the presence and influence of STI in international affairs.

SD occurs in diverse contexts with extensive variation between countries and institutions about how individuals get recruited or trained to fulfil SD roles, how their career paths are envisioned and what political relevance is attributed to their specific area. 11 The author proposes a science diplomat taxonomy involving institutionalised and non-institutionalised positions (see Table 1 below). Whereas SD institutionalised roles mostly involve official states’ representatives usually acting through formal diplomatic engagement (Track I diplomacy), non-institutionalised roles usually refer to non-state actors operating through non-governmental, unofficial and informal channels who only occasionally engage with government officials (Track II diplomacy). This Track I /Track II diplomacy distinction goes beyond its traditional context of conflict resolution between states 12 to include advancing communication and co-operation of already established and amiable relations between countries. 13

• The science diplomat taxonomy

Citation: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15, 3 (2020) ; 10.1163/1871191X-BJA10026

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide
• 2.1 Institutionalised Positions

This category comprises roles at embassies, ministries, government agencies, research councils, international organisations and so forth that either have a formal SD mandate and/or that actively bring science policy and foreign policy together.

2.1.1 Institutionalised Positions Abroad

These are the traditional science diplomats who are deployed in an official mission abroad, who may hold the legitimacy/responsibility of representing their country before foreign parties and who have an institutional mandate to cover STI affairs. The type of positions at embassies and how these are filled by either scientists or diplomats vary greatly between countries. 14 Some institutionalised positions are:

Science counsellors and attachés: These individuals hold the senior STI responsibilities within a diplomatic mission. The literature on these roles goes back to the 1950s when the United States launched the science attaché programme that temporarily deployed scientists at US embassies to promote international scientific collaborations and improve the US image before other countries. 15 Shortly after, the United States switched to a model where diplomats filled up these positions. 16 Indeed, countries such as the United States, Austria and Switzerland appoint diplomats as science counsellors/attachés, whereas others such as France and Italy appoint active scientists instead. There lies in between the UK Science and Innovation Network ( UK-SIN ) where local professionals, usually with a scientific background, are hired as science attachés to work alongside career diplomats. China instead deploys civil servants from the Ministry for Science and Technology and rarely from research institutes or universities, barely using career diplomats for these roles.

Former French Science Counsellor in Russia and Italy, Pierre-Bruno Ruffini, describes four functions for science counsellors/attachés: 17 1) collecting and analysing information of scientific advances and strategies; 2) facilitating connections between scientific communities of both countries; 3) promoting the STI image of their country and intellectual outputs originating in their country; and 4) organising the reception of official delegations. With the growing importance of pandemics, cybersecurity, climate change and so forth in diplomacy and foreign policy making, an additional function could be 5) the delivery of science advice to the ambassador and other embassy officials if required.

Innovation attachés/delegates: These officers promote innovation international funding schemes and assist STI private companies based in their home or their destination countries to establish international partnerships and joint ventures, identify market niches and/or attract foreign investment. UK-SIN delegates cover science and innovation but other national networks, such as SwissNex or the Spanish Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial ( CDTI ), are mostly focused on innovation. These officers usually have STI and/or financial backgrounds.

Science envoys: Few renowned scientists can and want to serve full time in embassies but they may accept the opportunity to participate in official delegations meeting foreign government and non-government science officials and convening meetings and workshops on topics at the intersection of STI and foreign policy. Thus, the US Science Envoys programme recruits eminent leaders in academia to strengthen US bilateral STI relationships, engaging with foreign publics and advancing specific US policy objectives. 18

Diplomatic envoys: Career diplomats may be deployed to international organisations (e.g., the Union for the Mediterranean [UfM]) and large research infrastructures (e.g., the European Council for Nuclear Research [ CERN ]) to represent their government’s interests.

Liaison officers: These are scientists or managers deployed abroad by research councils, universities or research centres to promote international collaborations and talent circulation. They may also lobby international organisations or supranational entities such as the European Commission.

Tech ambassadors: Denmark, 19 France and Bolivia have deployed career diplomats or scientists to technology hubs as tech ambassadors. The importance of tech cities, start-ups, and tech giants is growing in the global economy as well as in international affairs, so tech ambassadors help countries to enhance their relationships with these stakeholders and oversee the global development of tech affairs (cybersecurity, big data, etc.). This trend partly shifts SD approaches from collaboration to competition due to a greater emphasis on strengthening the country’s or region’s economic and innovation capabilities. 20

2.1.2 Institutionalised Positions at Ministries or International Organisations

Two government departments are usually related to SD : the Ministry for Foreign Affairs ( MFA ), and the Ministry for Science, Technology, Innovation and/or Universities. These ministries as well as specialised international organisations, such as the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO ), may have official SD positions.

Special ambassadors for science diplomacy: MFA  s may recognise career diplomats with this role. These ambassadors help in designing national strategies and co-ordinating all SD officers deployed abroad and within MFA .

Chief scientific advisers ( CSA   s): Countries such as the UK, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, India, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand and also the European Commission appoint senior scientists to work as CSA  s in either a secondment or part-time framework in government departments. Generally, CSA  s are involved in mobilising knowledge to influence policy-making processes and may be single individuals or part of institutionalised or ad hoc expert committees. 21 CSA  s together with other professionals in the evidence-policy interface established the International Network for Government Science Advice ( INGSA ) in 2014. 22 CSA  s who provide advice to MFA  s are more related to SD , international scientific co-operation and international relations. Their role entails 1) being evidence brokers to inform decision-making in national foreign policies, diplomatic summits and international crises; 2) supporting international scientific co-operation and promotion of national STI systems abroad in co-ordination with the STI ministry; and 3) co-coordinating the network of science counsellors/attachés and STI activities in embassies abroad.

Civil servants in ministries and managers in international organisations: This comprises diplomats working in STI -related departments in MFAs and scientists/managers working in departments for international affairs in the STI ministry. They may assist the preparation of STI bilateral agreements, run research international funding schemes, support the science attaché network abroad and so forth.

• 2.2 Non-institutionalised Positions

These are scientists in academia or private industry, managers in agencies and research organisations with no formal SD mandate, civil society representatives and other SD facilitators. All of these may only sometimes engage in international projects that involve liaising with government officials and international organisations. Indeed, they may not even recognise some of their actions as SD . There is nonetheless a risk of conceptual stretching when considering these actors as science diplomats.

Researchers engaging in diplomacy: Scientists who work full time in academia can occasionally engage with the general public, policy-makers, parliamentarians, government officials and diplomats to discuss global challenges and provide their expertise; for instance, those scientists who contributed to an understanding of the ozone problem or who currently advise the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change ( IPCC ). 23

Policy scientists, science managers and consultants: These are experts in science management and consultancy who foster interactions between research, governments and international organisations with occasional impacts on the international policy system. They include policy scientists in governmental departments or public agencies who shape and deliver policies; heads/officers of international affairs who manage international projects and partnerships; heads/officers of public affairs who influence policy-making and regulatory processes with an international scope by providing evidence originating from their research centre, university or private company, raising their institution’s profile in the public debate and building trust; and science consultants who advise governments for the design and implementation of SD strategies.

3 The Science Diplomat’s Toolbox

SD approaches and conceptual understandings differ between scientists and diplomats. Two different cultures with distinguishable and sometimes opposing philosophies, interests, values and mind sets meet in this interface. 24

The set of required knowledge and skills to perform as science diplomats who bring both worlds together is quite broad. Depending on their backgrounds, they need to develop a specific subset (see Table 2 below). Broadly, science diplomats need to know how scientific research is conducted and have a basic understanding of the national/international STI landscapes to better engage with the scientific community. Also, they need to be familiar with policy affairs and international relationships to understand the setting in which they are working. They need to nurture skills in communication, negotiation, management, intercultural sensitivity, networking, storytelling, languages, science literacy and much more. 25

The science diplomat’s toolbox of knowledge and skills

• 4 Challenges

After reviewing what a science diplomat is and the required skills, some readers may be or would like to be science diplomats working in institutionalised positions but they should be aware of certain challenges.

First, SD has no clear career path, as many different positions do not necessarily state ‘science diplomacy’ in their names. When recalling their own personal voyages, science diplomats with scientific backgrounds often share their exposure to policy environments through life-transforming events such as those involving policy fellowship schemes, expeditions and international summits. 26 Networking in policy environments and engaging with potential mentors can prove useful for better understanding your interests and where you can best fit in.

Second, scientists are not usually trained in international law, diplomacy, public administration, governance or policy-making. Taking another master’s or executive programme to get formal education may be useful for understanding the world you are stepping into.

Third, institutionalised positions may operate between two government departments. This is a delicate position as you may need to combine separate interests and understandings, and navigate potential frictions.

Fourth, do not expect that you will be heard and be influential from day zero. Building trust and your own reputation takes time, hard work, establishing fruitful collaborations, arranging meetings with the scientific community and respecting chains of command.

Fifth, scientists tend to be more negative about SD than diplomats. Scientists may mistrust SD practices and professionals because of the risk of manipulation of science for political gain; the lack of immediate research career incentives if involved in SD ; the impression that SD does not provide instant improvements in national STI systems, research funding or researchers’ career conditions; or the fact that leaving behind an academic career may still be perceived as a failure. Conversely, diplomats welcome these interface professionals as they help them gain access to scientific knowledge and contacts.

• 5 Recommendations

As someone trained as a scientist who has worked at an embassy, 27 the author puts forward the following recommendations to current and potential science diplomats, who may adapt them to their specific context:

It is a figure-it-out position within a team! There is no manual of instructions to read when you start working in SD . You need to realise what is expected from you and have an entrepreneurial and proactive attitude (e.g., design an innovative programme never before tried in your institution). Speak with your colleagues in other destinations and engage with your government headquarters to share best practices and conceive common strategies.

Science is just one piece in the puzzle but try to embed it everywhere! In diplomacy, there are different interests at play and science is just one of many. Sometimes you will be frustrated when your advice or project is not followed or approved due to other interests. Learn from the experience to better understand the whole picture and how science fits in it, and to improve your persuasion skills for future opportunities. Also, consider how to connect the embassy departments (trade, economy, education, transportation, agriculture, culture) with the scientific community to raise the importance of science in their portfolios (e.g., arranging joint events or meetings with scientific experts). Finally, try to import scientific practices (e.g., critical thinking, peer-review) to your current setting as they may improve established processes and policy-making.

Identify your foreign counterparts for bilateral and multilateral synergies! You work in an international setting for bringing countries together. Monitor the latest breakthroughs in research and science policy in your destination country and explore collaboration opportunities between governments ( STI bilateral agreements, joint research funds, science governance practice exchange). Make sure you defend your national interests while being as open and collaborative as possible with your foreign counterparts. Also, engage with the thriving global community of science diplomats to learn from others, publish in specialised journals and seek synergies.

Be humble, communicative, trustworthy and keep your eyes open! Be humble when approaching other professionals, as they may be open for collaboration or know of someone who shares your interest. Use common language that avoids jargon and improve your narrative skills to leave behind scholarly explanations. Build your trust and reputation to enhance the image of your institution by keeping in contact with your network and making anyone feel part of your successes; the smart use of social media can help you. Finally, read and watch the news because a constant flow of issues merits your attention at an embassy; you never know when your advice or action could effect a change.

Involve the general public! This should not be a dialogue exclusively between scientists and diplomats, when populisms, pseudoscience, fake news and citizen mistrust of experts and democratic institutions seem to be on the rise. 28 Involving citizens in your activities will expose them to how scientific knowledge and democratic institutions both operate. Consider their feedback, too, as new research opportunities and improvements in institutional settings may arise from this.

• 6 Conclusion

With the growing importance of STI affairs in diplomacy and the emergence of global challenges, nation states require more science diplomats in institutionalised and non-institutionalised positions. These professionals are key to preserving national interests that ensure socio-economic competitiveness but also facilitate multilateral responses for addressing global challenges.

• Bibliography

Aukes, Ewert J., Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, Stefan Kuhlmann and Sanaz Honarmand Ebrahimi. Towards Effective Science Diplomacy Practice . S4D4C Policy Brief No. 2 (Vienna: S4D4C, 2020).

Berkman , Paul Arthur . ‘ Evolution of Science Diplomacy and Its Local-Global Applications ’. European Foreign Affairs Review 24 ( 2019 ), 63 - 80 , special issue.

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bertelsen , Rasmus G. , Li Xing and Mette Højris Gregersen . ‘ Chinese Arctic Science Diplomacy: An Instrument for Achieving the Chinese Dream? ’ In Global Challenges in the Arctic Region: Sovereignty, Environment and Geopolitical Balance , eds. Elena Conde and Sara Iglesias Sánchez ( New York : Routledge , 2017 ), 442 - 460 .

Copeland , Daryl . Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations ( Boulder : Lynne Rienner , 2009 ).

‘ Coronavirus: Three Things All Governments and Their Science Advisers Must Do Now ’. Nature 579 ( 7799 ) ( 2020 ), 319 - 320 .

Degelsegger-Márquez, Alexander, Tim Flink and Charlotte Rungius. What it Takes to Do Science Diplomacy: Practices, Identities, Needs and Challenges of Science Diplomacy Practitioners: Baseline Analysis and Needs Assessment . S4D4C Deliverable 2.3 (Vienna: S4DC, 2019).

Diamond , Louise and John McDonald . Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Guide and Analysis ( Boulder : Lynne Rienner , 1991 ).

El-Baz , Farouk . ‘ Science Attachés in Embassies ’. Science 329 ( 5987 ) ( 2010 ), 13.

Elorza Moreno , Ana , Lorenzo Melchor , Guillermo Orts-Gil , Cristina Gracia , Izaskun Lacunza , Borja Izquierdo and José Ignacio Fernández-Vera . ‘ Spanish Science Diplomacy: A Global and Collaborative Bottom-Up Approach ’. Science and Diplomacy 6 ( 1 ) ( 2017 ).

Flink , Tim , and Ulrich Schreiterer . ‘ Science Diplomacy at the Intersection of S&T Policies and Foreign Affairs: Toward a Typology of National Approaches ’. Science and Public Policy 37 ( 9 ) ( 2010 ), 665 - 677 .

Forbes , William H. ‘ The Role of Science Attachés ’. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 13 ( 8 ) ( 1957 ), 274 - 276 .

Gluckman , Peter . ‘ Science Advice to Governments: An Emerging Dimension of Science Diplomacy .’ Science and Diplomacy 5 ( 2 ) ( 2016 ).

Gluckman, Peter. ‘Reflections on the Evidentiary-Politics Interface’. International Network for Government Science Advice ( INGSA ), 11 May 2020.

Gluckman , Peter D. , Vaughan Turekian , Robin W. Grimes and Teruo Kishi . ‘ Science Diplomacy: A Pragmatic Perspective from the Inside ’. Science and Diplomacy 6 ( 4 ) ( 2017 ).

Grimes , Robin W. , Julie K. Maxton and Ruth E. Williams . ‘ Providing International Science Advice: Challenges and Checklists ’. Science and Diplomacy 6 ( 3 ) ( 2017 ).

Gual Soler, Marga. ‘How I Became a Science Diplomat’. Slate, 26 October 2015.

Gual Soler, Marga. ‘What Set of Skills Do I Need to Be a Good Science Diplomat?’ In S4D4C European Science Diplomacy Online Course (Vienna: S4D4C, 2020).

Gual Soler, Marga and Tolullah Oni. ‘Here’s How “Science Diplomacy” Can Help Us Contain COVID -19’. World Economic Forum, 5 May 2020.

Guimón , José and Rajneesh Narula . ‘ A Happy Exception: The Pandemic Is Driving Global Scientific Collaboration ’. Issues in Science and Technology , 22 April 2020 .

Jasanoff , Sheila . The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers ( Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1990 ).

Kaltofen , Carolin , and Michele Acuto . ‘ Science Diplomacy: Introduction to a Boundary Problem ’. Global Policy 9 ( 2018 ), 8 - 14 .

Klynge , Casper , Mikael Ekman and Nikolaj Juncher Waedegaard . ‘ Diplomacy in the Digital Age: Lessons from Denmark’s TechPlomacy Initiative ’. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 ( 1-2 ) ( 2020 ), 185 - 195 .

Leijten , Jos . ‘ Exploring the Future of Innovation Diplomacy ’. European Journal of Futures Research 5 ( 20 ) ( 2017 ).

Linkov , Igor , Benjamin Trump , Elisa Tatham , Sankar Basu and Mihail C. Rocco . ‘ Diplomacy for Science Two Generations Later ’. Science and Diplomacy 3 ( 1 ) ( 2014 ).

Loftness , Robert L. ‘ Why Science Attaches? ’. Scientific Monthly 80 ( 2 ) ( 1955 ), 124 - 127 .

Mair , David , Laura Smillie , Giovanni La Placa , Florian Schwendinger , Milena Raykovska , Zsuzsanna Pasztor and Rene Van Bavel . Understanding Our Political Nature: How to Put Knowledge and Reason at the Heart of Political Decision-Making ( Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union , 2019 ).

Melchor, Lorenzo, Ana Elorza and Izaskun Lacunza. Calling for a Systemic Change: Towards a EU Science Diplomacy for Addressing Global Challenges . S4D4C Policy Report (Madrid: S4D4C, 2020).

Moedas , Carlos . ‘ Science Diplomacy in the European Union ’. Science and Diplomacy 5 ( 1 ) ( 2016 ).

Moomaw , William R. ‘ Scientist Diplomats or Diplomat Scientists: Who Makes Science Diplomacy Effective? ’ Global Policy 9 ( 2018 ), 78 - 80 .

Pielke , Roger A. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics . ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2007 ).

Rao , Jason E. ‘ A Career in Science Policy and Diplomacy: From Banana Slug to Diplomat ’. Molecular Biology of the Cell 29 ( 21 ) ( 2018 ), 2516 - 2518 .

Royal Society and AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy . RS Policy Document 01/10 (London: Royal Society, 2010).

Ruffini , Pierre-Bruno . Science and Diplomacy: A New Dimension of International Relations ( Cham : Springer International , 2017 ).

Ruffini , Pierre-Bruno . ‘ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Science-Diplomacy Nexus ’. Global Policy 9 ( 2018 ), 73 - 77 .

S4D4C. The Madrid Declaration on Science Diplomacy (Madrid: S4D4C, 2019).

Turekian , Vaughan C. ‘ The Making of a Science Diplomat: A Father’s Day Tribute ’. Science and Diplomacy 2 ( 2 ) ( June 2013 ).

Tyler , Chris , and Peter Gluckman . ‘ Coronavirus: Governments Knew a Pandemic Was a Threat — Here’s Why They Weren’t Better Prepared ’. The Conversation , 27 April 2020 .

Weingart , Peter . ‘ Scientific Expertise and Political Accountability: Paradoxes of Science in Politics ’. Science and Public Policy 26 ( 3 ) ( 1999 ), 151 - 161 .

Wilsdon , James . ‘ The Past, Present and Future of the Chief Scientific Advisor ’. European Journal of Risk Regulation 5 ( 3 ) ( 2014 ), 293 - 299 .

Young, Mitchell. Building Better Science Diplomacy for Global Challenges: Insights from the COVID-19 Crisis . S4D4C Policy Brief (Prague: S4D4C, 2020).

• Lorenzo Melchor

works as European Union Science Advice and Diplomacy Officer in the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology ( FECYT ) as part of the Horizon 2020 European project ‘Using Science for/in Diplomacy for Addressing Global Challenges, S4D4C’. He worked as Science Adviser at the Spanish Embassy in London between 2015 and 2018, as part of a FECYT project to deploy scientists at different key embassies. He holds a PhD in Molecular Biology and has had an international academic career in cancer genetics of thirteen years in Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom, with over 30 academic peer-reviewed publications. He is now a master’s student in policy analysis.

The author thanks his colleagues Izaskun Lacunza and Ana Elorza for their valuable feedback on this essay and their daily collaboration. Additionally, the author thanks current and former colleagues from FECYT , as well as those diplomats, civil servants, staff and interns who worked at the Spanish Embassy in London with him during his term there. The author is funded by the ‘Using Science for/in Diplomacy for Addressing Global Challenges (S4D4C)’ consortium, and this project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 770342.

Guimón and Narula 2020.

Gluckman 2020; Gual Soler and Oni 2020; Melchor, Elorza and Lacunza 2020, 19-40; ‘Coronavirus’ 2020; Tyler and Gluckman 2020; Young 2020.

Royal Society and AAAS 2010.

Moedas 2016.

Flink and Schreiterer 2010; Gluckman et al. 2017; Royal Society and AAAS 2010.

S4D4C 2019, 3.

Aukes et al. 2020, 4; Copeland 2009; Kaltofen and Acuto 2018, 8; Moomaw 2018, 78; Ruffini 2017, 27-33.

Loftness 1955, 124.

Moomaw 2018, 79-80.

Degelsegger-Márquez, Flink and Rungius 2019, 4.

Diamond and McDonald 1991.

Bertelsen, Xing and Gregerson 2017, 448-449.

Flink and Schreiterer 2010, 670-675; Ruffini 2017, 47-84.

Loftness 1955; Forbes 1957.

Linkov et al. 2014.

Ruffini 2017, 48.

El-Baz 2010; Linkov et al. 2014, 3.

Klynge, Ekman and Waedegaard 2020.

Leijten 2017, 2.

Jasanoff 1990; Pielke 2007; Weingart 1999; Wilsdon 2014.

Gluckman 2016.

Gual Soler and Oni 2020; Moomaw 2018, 79; Ruffini 2018.

Copeland 2009; Ruffini 2017, 27-33.

Degelsegger-Márquez, Flink and Rungius 2019; Gluckman et al. 2017, 4-5; Grimes, Maxton and Williams 2017, 3-7; Gual Soler 2020; Mair et al. 2019; Pielke 2007.

Berkman 2019, 64-67; Gual Soler 2015; Rao 2018; Turekian 2013.

Elorza Moreno et al. 2017, 7-8.

Melchor, Elorza and Lacunza 2020, 28-29.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Content Metrics

• 1 Introduction1

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

Search form

The CPD Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars and practitioners from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect CPD's views. For blogger guidelines, click here.

National Styles in Science Diplomacy: China

Note from the CPD Blog Manager:  This essay was adapted by the author from her monograph, “ National Styles in Science, Diplomacy, and Science Diplomacy: A Case Study of the P5 Countries ,” a 2018 publication from  Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy.  Read the author's CPD Blog posts about science diplomacy in the UK , France ,  Russia  and the U.S.

Science diplomacy is becoming an important tool and mechanism that allows states to more effectively promote and secure their foreign policy agenda. Recognizing the role science plays on national and international levels, in addition to identifying the national diplomatic style, helps to construct a national style of science diplomacy and evaluate its potential for global governance in addressing global issues on a massive systematic scale. The study highlights how national style in science diplomacy affects the process of global competition and socialization. 

China adapted its own version of modern science and diplomacy only relatively recently, but such adaptation was necessary to smooth the process in dealing with Western powers and to step forward on the path of scientific and technological progress. Perhaps, when China achieves its goal of bridging the scientific and technological gap with developed countries, as it has already done in economics, it might abandon the Western model and embrace values more in harmony with traditional Chinese civilization. For now, China’s state-centered approach dramatically limits its influence and the international community’s receptiveness. If it chose to, China could utilize science diplomacy in the implementation of its foreign policy; however, there is currently no visible sign that this is occurring. While it is premature to say that China harbors any ambitions for global governance through science diplomacy, a reality that is unlikely to change in the near future, China’s ambitions for global leadership also cannot be neglected.

Chinese Syncretism

While extracting a series of elements characterizing China’s national style in science and diplomacy will inevitably be somewhat superficial, it is better to identify rather societal differences in national styles.

Contemporary China is rapidly modernizing and advancing in many spheres, demonstrating the country’s economic and technological progress. If China’s outer shell is recognizable to the West, then its internal essence is more likely to remain the preserve of traditional Chinese characteristics that were cultivated over the course of several millennia.

When it comes to science diplomacy, China’s leverage can be outlined in at least two ways: (1) international engagement through signing scientific and technological bilateral agreements that express the joint will to deepen exchanges and joint actions, and (2) generating smart power.

China’s historical and cultural development strongly contrasts the Western experience. The usual suggested periodization of science and diplomacy cannot be applied to China. For our purposes, when looking at the differences between the West and China we should first consider cultural mindsets and patterns of human behavior. China’s civilizational roots comes from the syncretism of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and other religious-philosophical categories.

The syncretism of Chinese culture alludes to a time when China had to adopt and adjust its modern science and diplomacy in order to deal with Westerners. Diplomacy was adjusted first; science was adjusted afterwards. China had not yet established its own modern science, as Western forms of science were only brought to China a century after diplomacy was.

The syncretism of modern China has shown tremendous results. Within just the past few decades, China declared its serious intention to be a major international power, and its actions have shown its aims to expand its geopolitical acquisitions, pursue a leadership position in the world, and bring about a multipolar global system.

The difference between Chinese science and science in the West is dramatic, and for the most part is due to the theoretical foundations upon which the scientific revolution occurred in Europe. In Europe, science was used to unveil the laws of nature or “God’s” laws. By contrast, the Chinese civilization had much more metaphysical groundings, with ideas represented constantly in shifting and repeating cycles.

From the Western perspective, there is also a symbolic communication and ambiguity of the Chinese language as the Chinese were believed to speak and write not in a scientific manner, but in confusion, by means of various claims and discourses. Symbolic communication provides room for alternative interpretations, as the choice of translation is predetermined by the ideological context of the writer.

The failure of traditional Chinese society to launch its own scientific revolution is also explained by the inability of non-state actors—universities, cities and towns—to exist as autonomous entities. China maintained a powerful state bureaucracy and rigid social structure, based on the hierarchical principles of a censorial system and extended authority over large territorial units.

The first modern universities emerged in China only in the early 20 th century as a type of Western model adaptation, showcasing the essence of Chinese syncretism. For the first time in Chinese history, a variety of professionals in law, medicine, business and science asserted themselves to be semi-independent from the state. However, the following proletarian cultural revolution under Mao Zedong brought down these professionals. Later, under Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, science was strictly committed to Marxist-Leninist guidance, which almost completely excluded the free inquiry foundation needed for scientific creativity and innovation. In the 1990s, the Communist leadership declared that the Chinese people need to take an active part in the modern scientific and technological endeavors that belong to all of humankind. However, China still struggles to balance between academic freedom and state control.

The Toolbox of Diplomacy

China’s modernization and development embraces the idea of gaining the acceptance of the international community, primarily the U.S., Europe and Japan. When it comes to science diplomacy, China’s leverage can be outlined in at least two ways: (1) international engagement through signing scientific and technological bilateral agreements that express the joint will to deepen exchanges and joint actions, and (2) generating smart power.

• Initially, China engaged with the international community by sending Chinese students to Western universities, competitively pursuing joint scientific work and publications among young academics, maintaining relations with the growing Chinese scientific diaspora abroad, and by developing national science and technology parks. China’s signing of international agreements was testimony to its openness to cooperation and marked China’s entrance onto the world stage.
• There is no visible indication that China prioritizes science diplomacy as a toolbox to implement its foreign policy. Instead, there is clear recognition that the use of hard military power and economic resources for material rewards may not be a feasible basis for China to be recognized and genuinely accepted by the international (and scientific) community.

China’s ability to generate the soft power of attraction through cultural projection was started in earnest under the leadership of Hu Jintao, who was concerned with public diplomacy efforts. China’s main diplomatic endeavor in this space was the launching of Confucius Institutes that were represented by the network of cultural agencies and embassies overseas. Although the idea of developing a cultural network abroad is similar to France’s cultural centers, a problem arises for China from the style of governance and traditional regulations placed upon these cultural entities. The Confucius Institutes are mainly viewed with suspicion as propaganda agents of the Chinese Communist Party.

China’s political system and traditional values are alien to Western Liberalism and scientific autonomy. Having different perceptions about espionage and the theft of intellectual property, human rights, freedom of speech, ethics and morality, scientific autonomy might be an insurmountable barrier for genuine scientific collaboration between Chinese and Western researchers, and might also erode diplomatic negotiations as they are traditionally considered by the West.

• Asia Pacific
• science diplomacy
• diplomatic styles
• national diplomatic style

• Russian Science Diplomacy and Global Nuclear Security in a Time of Conflict December 2, 2022
• Promoting International Scientific Cooperation through Vaccine Diplomacy April 13, 2021
• For Common Good: Russia’s Public Diplomacy During the Covid-19 Era April 17, 2020
• Assessing Fear, Cooperation and Trust in Summit Diplomacy with Kim Jong Un August 1, 2019
• Strategizing Science Diplomacy May 16, 2019

National Styles in Science Diplomacy

Science diplomacy is becoming an important tool and mechanism that allows states to more effectively promote and secure their foreign policy agenda. Recognizing the role science plays on national and international levels...

National Styles in Science Diplomacy: The U.S.

Note from the CPD Blog Manager: This essay was adapted by the author from her monograph, “National Styles in Science, Diplomacy, and Science Diplomacy: A Case Study of the P5 Countries,” a 2018 publication from ...

National Styles in Science Diplomacy: The UK

Note from the CPD Blog Manager: This essay was adapted by the author from her monograph, “National Styles in Science, Diplomacy, and Science Diplomacy: A Case Study of the P5 Countries,” a 2018 publication from Brill...

National Styles in Science Diplomacy: France

STAY IN THE KNOW

Want to follow the issues you care about in public diplomacy?

Sign up for the CPD Weekly Newsletter:

Visit CPD's Online Library

Explore CPD's vast online database featuring the latest books, articles, speeches and information on international organizations dedicated to public diplomacy. 

POPULAR ARTICLES

• Science Diplomacy in International Relations: A Portugal Case Study April 18
• "Nation of Storytellers": Ireland’s Public Diplomacy Success Centers on Storytelling March 22
• Thai Cultural Diplomacy: Moving Beyond Traditional Culture? April 1
• China’s Digital Public Diplomacy Towards ASEAN Countries: How Beijing Frames the South China Sea Issue May 6
• Public Diplomacy in the News: A History of State Dinners, Eurovision Boycott, and L.A.’s Olympic Angst April 11

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Join the conversation.

Interested in contributing to the CPD Blog? We welcome your posts. Read our guidelines and find out how you can submit blogs and photo essays  > . 

Phone: (213) 821-2078

Email: [email protected]

Publications

• Analysis & Opinions
• News & Announcements
• Newsletters
• Policy Briefs & Testimonies
• Presentations & Speeches
• Reports & Papers
• Quarterly Journal: International Security
• Artificial Intelligence
• Conflict & Conflict Resolution
• Coronavirus
• Economics & Global Affairs
• Environment & Climate Change
• International Relations
• International Security & Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Science & Technology
• Student Publications
• War in Ukraine
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & North Africa
• North America
• South America
• Infographics & Charts

US-Russian Contention in Cyberspace

The overarching question imparting urgency to this exploration is: Can U.S.-Russian contention in cyberspace cause the two nuclear superpowers to stumble into war? In considering this question we were constantly reminded of recent comments by a prominent U.S. arms control expert: At least as dangerous as the risk of an actual cyberattack, he observed, is cyber operations’ “blurring of the line between peace and war.” Or, as Nye wrote, “in the cyber realm, the difference between a weapon and a non-weapon may come down to a single line of code, or simply the intent of a computer program’s user.”

The Geopolitics of Renewable Hydrogen

Renewables are widely perceived as an opportunity to shatter the hegemony of fossil fuel-rich states and democratize the energy landscape. Virtually all countries have access to some renewable energy resources (especially solar and wind power) and could thus substitute foreign supply with local resources. Our research shows, however, that the role countries are likely to assume in decarbonized energy systems will be based not only on their resource endowment but also on their policy choices.

What Comes After the Forever Wars

As the United States emerges from the era of so-called forever wars, it should abandon the regime change business for good. Then, Washington must understand why it failed, writes Stephen Walt.

Telling Black Stories: What We All Can Do

Full event video and after-event thoughts from the panelists.

• Defense, Emerging Technology, and Strategy
• Diplomacy and International Politics
• Environment and Natural Resources
• International Security
• Science, Technology, and Public Policy
• Africa Futures Project
• Applied History Project
• Arctic Initiative
• Asia-Pacific Initiative
• Cyber Project
• Defending Digital Democracy
• Defense Project
• Economic Diplomacy Initiative
• Future of Diplomacy Project
• Geopolitics of Energy Project
• Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
• Homeland Security Project
• Intelligence Project
• Korea Project
• Managing the Atom
• Middle East Initiative
• Project on Europe and the Transatlantic Relationship
• Security and Global Health
• Technology and Public Purpose
• US-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism

Special Initiatives

• American Secretaries of State
• An Economic View of the Environment  
• Cuban Missile Crisis  
• Russia Matters
• Thucydides's Trap

AP Photo/Dorothee Thiesing

The construction site of the Aurora Observatory in Karholl, northern Iceland, Monday, Oct. 31, 2016. Funded by China's Polar Research Institute, the facility houses Chinese, Icelandic and international scientists.

Journal Article - The Polar Journal

Kristín Ingvarsdóttir

• Guðbjörg Ríkey Th. Hauksdóttir

The aurora borealis research carried out by China and Japan in the Arctic state of Iceland has been received very differently both in Iceland and abroad. While the Japanese research has gone almost unnoticed for decades, the Chinese research has been received with much scepticism and negative media coverage, including talk of a possible security threat. This paper presents a comparative study which explores the history of the two research projects, as well as their execution and reception. Through the lens of the aurora research, the paper also explores the broader implications of Arctic and science diplomacy on bilateral relations between Iceland and the two Asian powerhouses. As the aurora research in Iceland has so far received limited academic attention outside the natural sciences, the paper is largely based on primary research, including thirteen in-depth interviews with key individuals closely connected to the projects. The paper demonstrates the different reception of the two projects in Iceland and discusses both organisational issues, such as differences in scale and capacity, and underlying factors related to international politics. Furthermore, the research demonstrates that the Japanese case is a purely science-focused collaboration devoid of science diplomacy, while in the Chinese case, science has been used as a tool to facilitate more strategic diplomatic goals – most importantly the bilateral Free Trade Agreement between China and Iceland.

Want to Read More?

The authors.

• Predoctoral Research Fellow, Arctic Initiative
• China & security
• Bio/Profile
• Media Inquiries
• More by this author

Recommended

In the spotlight, most viewed.

Analysis & Opinions - High North News

It’s Greenland’s Turn to Lead the Arctic Council

• Hannah Chenok

Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

Current and Future Arctic Cooperation: Where to Next?

• Viktoria Waldenfels

Journal Article - The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs

Mapping a Path Forward for Arctic Cooperation with Russia: A Biodiversity Case Study

• Margaret Williams
• Nadezhda Filimonova
• Jennifer Spence

Should NATO Step Up Role in Russia-Ukraine War?

• Karen Donfried
• David Sanger
• Stephen Hadley

Energy, Geopolitics, and Climate Change: A Conversation with Meghan O'Sullivan

• Robert N. Stavins
• Meghan L. O'Sullivan

Diving Deep Into Disagreements on the Israeli-Hamas War

• Tarek Masoud

Analysis & Opinions - New Straits Times

Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War

• Joseph S. Nye

Journal Article - Research Policy

The Relationship Between Science and Technology

• Harvey Brooks

Analysis & Opinions - TIME Magazine

The World's Newest Nation Is Unraveling

Belfer center email updates, belfer center of science and international affairs.

79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-1400

Science diplomacy

• Read publication on  Science Diplomacy Capacity Development: Reflections on Diplo’s 2021 online course and the road ahead
• Watch the recording from the science diplomacy webinar

Science diplomacy has the potential to help us address some of the most pressing challenges of our time such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. In both cases science diplomacy has already illustrated its potential. Yet, we are still very far from achieving our global goals.

2022 is an important year to further shape the practice of science diplomacy and bring clarity to confusion.

Science diplomacy has become somewhat of a buzzword and is used in many different ways by different actors. So in the following, let us unpack the concept of science diplomacy and highlight some of its practices. 

Stay up to date!

Subscribe to Science Diplomacy Updates and stay up to date with upcoming events, new publications and research, and Diplo courses and training on science diplomacy.

What is science diplomacy?

There are three types of science diplomacy (AAAS and Royal Society, 2010): 

• Science in diplomacy is about the use of scientific advice for foreign policy decision-making. The  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations is an important example. Established in 1988, the IPCC brings together the latest scientific advice on climate change.
• Diplomacy for science  often include large-scale research facilities, which given their cost and resource intensity can only be built through collaboration among a number of countries. The most  example of diplomacy for science is the  European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) , which was established in 1954 after negotiations between 12 founding member states.  
• Science for diplomacy is the promotion of a more peaceful world through scientific cooperation. CERN is also an example of science for diplomacy. A commonly cited recent example of science for diplomacy   is the  Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME) , a research facility based in Jordan. It’s members are Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, Palestine, and Turkey. This is very notable as the diplomatic relationships between some of the members are very strained. Iran54 and Israel, for example, have not had direct diplomatic relationships since 1979.

How is science diplomacy conducted?

• Development and management of international cooperation
• Negotiations
• Diplomatic reporting

A good example of the practice of science diplomacy is CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research CERN. Its founding reveals two different aspects of practising science diplomacy. Have a sneak peak into our science diplomacy online course  and learn more about CERN’s origin story. 

Why does science diplomacy matter?

Science diplomacy mirrors the importance of science for modern society from the fight against pandemics to nuclear non-proliferation and the fight against climate change. Science for diplomacy can also contribute towards more international cooperation and, ultimately, more peaceful international relations.

Who are science diplomats?

States and their representatives.

The main actors are states. According to Flink and Schreiterer (2010) they are motivated to participate in science diplomacy by the following main goals:

• Access:  Ensure access to ‘researchers, research findings and research facilities natural resources and capital’ (Flink and Schreiterer, 2010, p. 669)
• Promotion:  Promote the country’s research and development achievements
• Influence:  Impact public opinions abroad and the opinion of foreign decisionmakers
• Research cooperation:  Support participation in large-scale research efforts that would otherwise not be realistic or possible
• Addressing global challenges:  Work towards addressing global challenges such as climate change

When it comes to putting these goals into practice, diplomats and official representatives are called upon.

Scientists serving as science attachés

Some of the first science attachés were scientists who were sent abroad to represent their country. We already mentioned the zoologist Charles Wardell Stiles, the US science attaché in the 19th century. The USA maintained one of the biggest networks of science attachés, including 24 attachés at the height of the science attachés programme in 1987 (Linkov et al., 2014).

The appointment of science attachés often follows broader strategic interests.77 In 2009, former US president Obama appointed three science attachés to Muslim-majority countries following his outreach efforts to the Muslim world (El-Baz, 2010).

Many examples of science attachés come from the Global North.78 However, looking more closely, we can identify cases of scientists acting as state representatives from the Global South. The term ‘science attaché’ is often not used in these cases, and does not strictly apply, but parts of the practice of these individuals do fit within a broader understanding of the work of science attachés. Hornsby and Parshotam (2018) looked at the participation of states from sub-Saharan Africa in international food standard-setting. They found that some ‘scientists act as state representatives, advancing an interest-based position in negotiations around scientifically based international standards’.

Scientists who serve in this role need to have a good understanding of diplomacy and international relations. More often than not, their science communication skills are called upon. They also need to navigate a fine line between their role as scientists and their role as envoys. Science advisors working with foreign ministries have a global network called the   Foreign Ministries S&T Advice Network (FMSTAN) .

Officials from other ministries and national institutions

If we look at current case studies, we see that some science attachés are seconded from other ministries, national scientific institutions, and other relevant domestic stakeholders. Looking at the case of France, for example, Flink and Schreiterer (2010) found that science attachés ‘are seconded from different institutional stakeholders according to their individual agenda with respect to the region’ that they are sent to.

It is also worth noting that in some cases, other ministries, such as the ministry for the economy or science and innovation, take the lead on science diplomacy efforts. For example, South Africa created the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, which became the Department of Science and Technology in 2002, and was later renamed the  Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) . It aims to pursue a ‘concerted science diplomacy strategy’ (Pandor, 2012). Different institutional cultures and perspectives on the main goals of science diplomacy can, in these cases, complicate finding a coherent and sustained approach.

Diplomats with a portfolio that includes science and technology

Diplomats who serve as official representatives of their countries also practice science diplomacy. Some simply touch upon science diplomacy practices as part of their work. For example, trade negotiators might need to liaise and collaborate with scientists back home on specialised questions. Diplomats based in Geneva might find themself in meetings at CERN regarding their countries’ membership.

In addition, career diplomats are also appointed to specific roles that give their practice a clear focus on science diplomacy. These include: special ambassadors or envoys for science diplomacy, scientific counsellors, and tech ambassadors.

Networks abroad

There are also outreach posts of states or groups of states for diplomatic and scientific interactions. They engage in science diplomacy, but do not have the status of an embassy. Sometimes they have the status of a consulate85, but only perform consular work in major emergency situations. Examples include:

• Switzerland’s  Swissnex  network
• The  Ibero-American Programme for Science, Technology and Development (CYTED)  (Gual Soler, 2014)
• The UK  Science and Innovation Network (SIN)
• Open Austria in Silicon Valley

Where is science diplomacy performed?

International organisations (IOs) are the main multilateral venue for science diplomacy. Examples of IO activities are: 

• The  UNESCO Science Report  (every five years)
• The  World Science Forum  (every two years)
• A number of  international science programmes
• The  World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) , which focuses on advancing science and scientists in developing countries

FAQs on Science Diplomacy

Are cyber diplomacy and digital diplomacy equivalent terms.

Cyber diplomacy and digital diplomacy can be interchangeable, with cyber diplomacy focusing more on security issues. Digital diplomacy involves implementing digital foreign policy and using tools like social media. Geopolitical changes impact diplomacy, with new topics like cybersecurity and tools such as social media being incorporated.

They can often be interchanged.   There are however some patterns emerging in their usage. Cyber diplomacy is used more to refer to diplomatic activities related to cyber security issues. There is more confusion about digital diplomacy being used to implement digital foreign policy (new topics in diplomatic agenda) and the use of new tools in diplomatic practice like social media, websites and online meeting platforms.

It is possible to avoid confusion in the current, transitory phase of terminology settling.

– The evolving geopolitical ENVIRONMENT for diplomacy: impact of digital technology on sovereignty distribution of power, and global interdependence among other issues.

– The emergence of new TOPICS in diplomatic agenda: cybersecurity.   internet governance, e-commerce, online human rights, and more than 50 other policy topics.

– Use of new TOOLS in diplomatic practice: social media, AI, big data, online meetings, virtual and augmented reality.

You can read more on terminological confusion and other aspects of digital diplomacy.  

How should governments prepare for the metaverse?

Governments must prepare for the evolving metaverse, focusing on data protection, cybersecurity, digital identity, and digital policy issues. Balancing physical, virtual, and augmented realities is crucial in readiness for the metaverse.

The future of the metaverse is still not clear.

Facebook has the network, financial and technical capabilities to make this happen. The government should be ready to address data protection, cybersecurity, digital identity, and other digital policy issues.   These issues need to be addressed in a way that balances “real” reality (physical), virtual realities, and augmented realities.

Is digital diplomacy different from cyber/e/net/tech/online diplomacy?

The text discusses how terms like cyber, digital, e, net, tech, and online are often used interchangeably in diplomacy, emphasizing the importance of understanding their specific nuances in the context of digital geopolitics.

It all comes down to semantics and context usage. These prefixes are frequently used in interchangeable ways. It is crucial to determine if a specific usage of cyber diplomacy/digital diplomacy or even e-diplomacy refers only to digital geopolitics, topics, or tools. You can learn more about different usages of prefixes in digital diplomacy .

Is online diplomatic representation permitted?

The Vienna Convention does not dictate specific forms of diplomatic representation, allowing for various options like online diplomacy. Its legality is acknowledged, and the trend’s future prevalence remains uncertain.

The Vienna convention (1961) on diplomatic relations does not specify how countries will be represented.   They are typically represented in another country by an embassy or other types of diplomatic missions.   However, there are many other options available such as rowing (nonresident Ambassadors).  Online diplomatic representation can be considered legal.   It is yet to be seen if this practice will increase in popularity over the next few years.

Is science diplomacy a form of public diplomacy?

Science diplomacy is sometimes seen as a part of public diplomacy, focusing on positive country image. Public diplomacy involves transparent communication with foreign publics to promote national interests, influenced by the concept of soft power by Joseph Nye. However, science diplomacy extends beyond public diplomacy and should not be simplified as such, as it often involves public diplomacy elements for many countries, like the US.

Some approaches subsume science diplomacy under public diplomacy. In this sense, science diplomacy is about winning hearts and minds; it is about creating a positive image of one’s country.

For clarity, let us look at a definition of public diplomacy. According to the USC Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD) , it is defined as ‘the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals. […] The concept of soft power coined by international relations scholar Joseph Nye has, for many, become a core concept in public diplomacy studies. Nye defines soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments”‘.

From this description and the examples on this page, we can see that science diplomacy is much more than public diplomacy and the one should not be reduced to the other. Having said this, it is important to recognise that for many countries, and in particular the USA, the practice of science diplomacy often has strong elements of public diplomacy.

Is science diplomacy a new phenomenon?

Science diplomacy is not a new concept, with roots tracing back to the 17th century, encompassing scientific cooperation across borders. The term gained prominence around 2005, though examples predate this. The Royal Society’s foreign secretary position in 1723 exemplifies early science diplomacy efforts. By the late 19th century, states were sending science envoys abroad. Nationalism led to challenges in global cooperation, but science remained a tool for national reputation building. Science attachés were stationed in the 19th century, with increased prominence in the 1950s and 1960s.

Science diplomacy is not a new practice. Yet, the term itself only came into general use relatively recently. While there is not one specific point at which the term emerged in its current use, its prominence in publications and various discourses began around 2005 (Flink and Rüffin, 2019).

Yet, examples of science diplomacy can be identified much earlier. Scholars Flink and Rüffin trace science diplomacy, understood as ‘scientific cooperation across borders’, back to the 17th century and the emergence of ‘modern’ science (Flink and Rüffin, 2019). They argue that communication and collaboration among scientists across borders finds its origin there. For example, in 1723, the British Royal Society created the position of ‘foreign secretary’ of the Royal Society.

This person was ‘to maintain regular correspondence with scientists overseas to ensure that the Society’s Fellows remained up-to-date with the latest ideas and research findings’ (Royal Society, 2010, p. 1). The emergence of modern nation states in the 19th century and rising nationalism, however, challenged cooperation across borders. Some scientific cooperation across borders, for example in the field of astronomy, still flourished during that time. Nationalism also gave new impetus to scientific progress as a means to foster a nation’s reputation 17and thus emphasised competition.

If we focus on science diplomacy as a set of activities and policies pursued by state actors, then the practice of sending representatives abroad to act as ‘science envoys’ or ‘science attachés’ can be traced back to at least the late 19th century (Linkov et al., 2014). In 1898, the USA stationed a science attaché, the zoologist Charles Wardell Stiles, at its Berlin embassy. As part of US diplomacy, science attachés became more prominent in the 1950s and 1960s.

What are hybrid meetings?

Hybrid meetings allow participants to attend either in person or remotely, ensuring equal opportunities for everyone to engage in discussions.

Hybrid meetings let people join both in person and online, giving everyone a fair chance to talk and take part in the meetings’ discussions.

What are the different meanings of 3 writings of diplomacy – Diplomacy – DIPLOMACY?

Three writings of diplomacy detail varying perspectives on the concept: diplomacy in lowercase letters relates to daily conflict resolution and representation; Diplomacy in uppercase signifies the professional realm of negotiations and treaties; DIPLOMACY, all in capital letters, embodies a glamorous, aristocratic facade associated with flags, receptions, and protocol, reminiscent of a historical aristocratic profession.

3 writings of diplomacy illustrate different ways in which diplomacy is perceived today:

diplomacy  – written in lower-case letters – reflects our daily experience. At home, at work, and on the street, we deal with conflicts through negotiations, engagement, and ultimately, compromise. In addition, we represent our family, our communities, and our companies. We often speak on behalf of others. This is what diplomacy is about. Most people would not use the term ‘diplomacy’ to describe these activities. Yet, these activities are at the core of diplomacy.

Diplomacy  – with a capital ‘D’ – is a profession and a system of representation for states. This is how diplomacy is seen in the news. It is about negotiations and international treaties, among other elements. Traditionally, Diplomacy is performed by diplomats and international officials working in embassies, ministries of foreign affairs, and international organisations. A lot has been written about Diplomacy; and you can read more about it on  Diplo’s website .

DIPLOMACY  – fully written in upper-case letters – is how diplomacy is often perceived by the general public. This is the diplomacy of  flags , receptions, black limousines, and protocol. DIPLOMACY looks glamorous and aristocratic. This perception can be traced back to the history of diplomacy, when it was a profession reserved for aristocrats.

What is cybersecurity?

Cybersecurity entails safeguarding information systems from threats through policies, procedures, and technical solutions, protecting against cyberwar, terrorism, and cybercrime.

Cybersecurity is a protection of the Internet and other information systems from malicious threats, misuse and malfunctioning. Cybersecurity covers wide area including protection from cyberwar, terrorist attack and cybercrime, among others. Cybersecurity is implemented through policies, procedures and technical solutions.

What is digital diplomacy?

Digital diplomacy encompasses the influence of digital technology on diplomatic activities in terms of changing geopolitical and geoconomic landscapes, new items on the diplomatic agenda, and innovative tools for diplomatic endeavors such as social media and big data.

Digital diplomacy refers to the impact of digital technology on diplomacy in three realms:

• changing digital geopolitical and geoconomic ENVIRONMENT for diplomatic activities (sovereignty, power redistribution, interdependence)
• emerging digital TOPICS on diplomatic agenda (e.g. cybersecurity, e-commerce, privacy protection, and
• new TOOLS for diplomatic activites (e.g. social media, big data, AI).

What is digital divide?

The digital divide refers to social inequalities stemming from varying access to computers and the Internet, evident between developed and developing countries, as well as within different demographics and professions.

Digital divide refers to social inequalities created by the introduction of computers and the Internet into human society. It is manifested in differences in number of computers, access to the Internet and available applications. Digital divide is most commonly used to describe the difference between developed and developing countries in the use of digital technology and the Internet. However, divides exists on various levels, including between young and old, urban and rural, and among different professions. 

What is diplomacy?

Diplomacy is the peaceful conduct of international relations through communication, representation, and negotiation between states and international actors to prevent conflict and achieve shared goals. This regulated process involves effective communication as a vital component to ensure successful diplomatic relations.

In its broadest sense, diplomacy is the conduct of international relations by peaceful means .

More restrictive is this definition: diplomacy is the peaceful conduct of international relations by official agents of states, international organisations, and other international actors .

Even more restrictive is the definition of diplomacy as the conduct of relations between sovereign states by members of their respective foreign services . There are also a wide range of definitions based on functions of diplomacy:

Representation is one of the most important functions of diplomacy.   Costas Constantinou blends the concepts of representation and communication in his definition :

“At its basic level, diplomacy is a regulated process of communication between at least two subjects, conducted by their representative agents over a particular object.”

The next set of definitions is focused on communication and the sharing of information .   In The International Law of Diplomacy, B.S.   Murthy defines diplomacy as,

“the process of transnational communication among the elites in the world arena.” Brian White defines diplomacy, both as “a communication process between international actors that seek through negotiation and dialogue to resolve conflicts” and as “one instrument that international actors use to implement their foreign policy”.

Tran Van Dinh’s most concise explanation of the importance communication has for diplomacy is:  

“Communication is to diplomacy as blood is to the human body.   Whenever communication ceases, the body of international politics, the process of diplomacy, is dead, and the result is violent conflict or atrophy.” Constantiou describes diplomacy as “a regulated process of communication” (Constantinou) and James Alan as “the communication system of the international society”.

The third approach focuses on the definition of diplomacy as negotiation . Quincy Wright defines diplomacy as:

“the art of negotiation, in order to achieve the maximum of group objectives with a minimum of costs, within a system of politics in which war is a possibility.”

Hendely Bull defines diplomacy as

“the management of international relations by negotiations.”

Learn more on diplomacy in general , digital diplomacy , science diplomacy , and other types of diplomacy

Join wide range of courses on diplomacy

What is e-polite language?

Online politeness is dwindling as language becomes more divisive and offensive. To maintain e-politeness, use language carefully and avoid sarcasm to prevent causing offense.

Unfortunately, online politeness is declining.   Language is divisive and offensive.

It’s possible to regain your e-politeness with careful language usage. Sarcasm should be avoided as it can easily lead to offence.

What is internet governance?

Internet governance encompasses the collaborative efforts of governments, the private sector, and civil society to establish shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making processes, and programs that influence the development and utilization of the Internet, as outlined by the World Summit on Information Society in 2005.

Internet governance is defined by the World Summit on Information Society (Tunis Agenda, 2005) as “the development and application by Governments, the private sector, and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.”

What is online diplomacy?

The use and importance of online diplomacy are decreasing.

Term online diplomacy is loosing its relevance and traction.

What is the definition of e-politeness

E-politeness refers to demonstrating respect and courtesy in online interactions, mirroring proper behavior expected in face-to-face communication.

E-politeness is about online behaviour that reflects respect and courtesy, just as it should be in real life.

What is the difference between digital diplomacy and public diplomacy?

Digital diplomacy encompasses more than just social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, including new technology, agenda-setting, and geopolitical shifts. Despite this broad scope, it is often mistaken for public diplomacy due to the emphasis on these platforms in international relations.

Public diplomacy only covers one aspect of digital diplomacy related to the use of TOOLS for diplomacy including Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Other aspects of digital diplomacy include new TOPICS on diplomatic agenda and changing geopolitical or geo-economic ENVIRONMENT.

However, digital diplomacy may sometimes be seen as just public diplomacy because of high media visibility of the use of Twitter and Facebook in international politics.

What is the difference between science and technology?

Science and technology are the pillars of modern society. While science involves knowledge and research, often not focused on solving practical issues, technology is the application of scientific principles. However, the lines between them are increasingly blurred, as they are interconnected and often complement each other. This distinction has become less clear in recent years.

Science and technology are both considered the foundations of modern society. These terms are often used in modern parlance.  The fundamental difference between science and technology is that it can be viewed as “disinterested knowledge and research” but not necessarily aimed at solving a practical problems.   Technology is commonly referred to in this way as “applied science”.

But, it’s difficult to discern such clear distinctions in practice.   Technology and science are often interconnected.   It is not easy to tell the difference between scientific discoveries in mathematics, and the development of computers.   Science and technology have been complementing one another.   This distinction has become more blurred in the last ten years.

What is the importance of agenda setting in diplomacy?

Agenda setting in diplomacy is crucial for placing important issues on global diplomatic agendas. Just like in media, there is a competition for attention in diplomacy. States aim to advance their interests by influencing international organizations to include their agenda items. With various unresolved matters regarding Internet governance, different actors are strategically maneuvering to ensure their issues are prioritized on the emerging Internet diplomatic agendas.

In the complex interplay of multiple issues and actors in diplomacy, the key challenge is to place certain issues on global diplomatic agendas. Similarly to the media in general and the world of the Internet, a fight for attention takes place, in this case diplomatic attention. Kehone and Nye suggest that states “struggle to get issues raised in international organisations that will maximise their advantage by broadening or narrowing the agenda.”

Currently, there are many unresolved issues related to Internet governance. As a result, extensive manoeuvring by different actors trying to place their own issues on emerging Internet diplomatic agendas is taking place. 

What was the role of science attachés in addressing COVID-19?

Science attachés played a crucial role in addressing COVID-19, providing support in crisis response, repatriation efforts, medical technology advice, and information collection. However, they mainly focused on national efforts and faced challenges in collaborating internationally. The experience has led to suggestions for improving science attachés’ work. More details can be found in the article “Science Attachés in a Post-COVID-19 World: Taking Stock of the Crisis from Science Diplomacy”.

Science attachés played an important role in the response to COVID-19. In the cases of France and the UK, the science attaché network was particularly important as part of the initial crisis response. This included supporting repatriation efforts and giving advice in the area of medical technologies to colleagues from other fields, such as trade. Later, science attachés were important in collecting information on initiatives and publications in their geographic region.

It is interesting to observe, though, that they mainly supported national efforts while Unsurprisingly, science attachés played an important role in the response to COVID-19. In the cases of France and the UK, the science attaché network was particularly important as part of the initial crisis response. This included supporting repatriation efforts and giving advice in the area of medical technologies to colleagues from other fields, such as trade.

Later, science attachés were important in collecting information on initiatives and publications in their geographic region. It is interesting to observe, though, that they mainly supported national efforts while struggling to maintain contact and collaborate with colleagues from other countries.

Based on this experience, a number of suggestions have been made on how to improve the work of science attachés. You can read more in the article Science Attachés in a Post-COVID-19 World: Taking Stock of the Crisis from Science & Diplomacy.

When did diplomacy start?

The concept of diplomacy dates back to ancient civilizations, evolving over time to become a structured practice involving negotiation and communication between nations. Diplomacy has been utilized for centuries to manage international relations, facilitate agreements, prevent conflicts, and promote cooperation among countries. Its origins can be traced to ancient Greek and Roman times, where envoys were tasked with conducting diplomatic missions and resolving disputes peacefully. Over the centuries, the practice of diplomacy has continued to develop and adapt to the changing global landscape, playing a crucial role in international affairs to this day.

From our blog

Origins of zero: a fascinating story of science and spirituality across civilisations .

Jovan Kurbalija

05 March 2023

Digital diplomacy , History of diplomacy , Science diplomacy

Number zero is one of the greatest inventions in history, with a profound impact on the evolution of humanity including our digital era, which is shaped by ‘0’ and ‘1’....

Science diplomacy in practice: Interview with Amb. Bhaskar Balakrishnan

Bhaskar Balakrishnan

09 December 2022

What does science diplomacy look like in practice? In particular, how do diplomats from the...

Will science diplomacy survive?

15 April 2022

Science diplomacy , Space diplomacy , Water diplomacy

Science diplomacy will very likely survive, but in a different form. Diplomats will continue to negotiate scientific collaboration, as they do in other areas of diplomacy such as food, health, and trade. However, scie...

Science diplomacy lessons from the movie Don’t Look Up

Muna Zaqsaw

13 March 2022

The star-studded Netflix movie Don’t Look Up provoked a lot of debate. As the first cohort of Diplo’s Science Diplomacy online course, we got together to explore the movie from the perspective of science diplomacy...

Training and courses

Science Diplomacy

Starting 14 Oct 24

Intro to Internet Governance

Starting 17 Feb 25

Science Diplomacy Capacity Development: Where Do We Go From Here? (WebDebate #55)

14 Jul 22 - 14 Jul 22

Science diplomacy: The road ahead in 2022 (WebDebate #53)

01 Mar 22 - 01 Mar 22

#SciDipTalks | Technology at the service of global health crises: Threats and opportunities

11 May 20 - 11 May 20

Science and technology diplomacy summer school

01 Jul 19 - 05 Jul 19

How countries interact with global innovation hubs: A look at Boston

27 Jun 19 -

United States

A global innovation hub: Science, tech, and diplomacy in Boston

25 Jun 19 -

[WebDebate] Science Diplomacy: Preparing the next generation

07 May 19 -

Embedding science and technology in international relations education and diplomatic training

16 Feb 19 -

[WebDebate] Science diplomacy: approaches and skills for diplomats and scientists to work together effectively

07 Feb 17 -

Diplo and the GIP at COBISS 2016 Conference

22 Nov 16 - 23 Nov 16

How computers really work: Outsmart your smartphone!

04 Nov 16 - 25 Nov 16

Switzerland

Fundamental Science and Society

07 Jul 16 - 07 Jul 16

Internet Research Fair: Stimulating academia to uncover the Internet’s unknowns

Second international conference on knowledge and diplomacy.

11 Feb 00 - 13 Feb 00

International Conference on Knowledge and Diplomacy

29 Jan 99 - 31 Jan 99

About tech diplomacy

There is still no established definition of the term ‘tech diplomacy’, neither academically nor in practice. Several other related types of diplomacy are widely used and are seemingly competing or overlapping with the term. These include ‘e-diplomacy’, ‘cyber... Read more...

Delivering Diplo’s 2021 Science Diplomacy online course 

Diplo has a track record of more than 20 years of capacity development in diplomacy. Given the increasing relevance of science diplomacy, expanding our program to include aspOur Science Diplomacy course builds on a number of conversations in our Diplo WebDebate format ... Read more...

Traversing biomedical science, technology & innovation, policy, and diplomacy

Traversing biomedical science, technology & innovation, policy, and diplomacy.... Read more...

Boundary Spanning at the American Association for the Advancement of Science

There are risks of oversimplifying and idolizing Science Diplomacy, particularly when confusing what Science Diplomacy should be with what it is able to achieve in practice. ... Read more...

Science Diplomacy opportunities to address infectious disease

In the field of infectious diseases research, Science Diplomacy is applied widely and plays a pivotal role globally on a macroscale, as well as in the day-to-day work of individual scientists.... Read more...

Science Diplomacy for Diplomats: the journey of a Cambodian diplomat

Science Diplomacy is incredibly valuable and essential for the future of the world. As a diplomat, one should at least be able to grasp the concept and the practice of Science Diplomacy, even if not directly involved.... Read more...

Using Science Diplomacy to achieve health goal

Engaging scientists, diplomats, and policy-makers in the development of science-informed policies through exchanges and joint construction of knowledge is crucial for addressing current and future challenges. This highlights the importance of a science-policy interface... Read more...

Science diplomacy at work: UNESCO, Latin America, and the Caribbean

Science Diplomacy could be defined as the art of using scientific knowledge and evidence to deal with complex social, economic and environmental issues of importance to human societies, as well as promoting agreements and cooperation within and among countries.... Read more...

Diplo: Effective and inclusive diplomacy

Diplo is a non-profit foundation established by the governments of Malta and Switzerland. Diplo works to increase the role of small and developing states, and to improve global governance and international policy development.

Diplo on Social

Want to stay up to date.

Subscribe to more Diplo and Geneva Internet Platform newsletters!

• English / हिन्दी

• Director's Message
• Former Directors
• Citizen Charter
• Research Council
• Management Council
• Apex Committee
• Head of Divisions
• Annual Reports
• Achievements
• Research Projects
• Ac-SIR (M.Sc./ Ph.D. S&T Communication)
• Conferences/ Seminars
• Human Resource Development
• Research Journals
• Abstracting Journals
• Popular Science Magazines
• Newsletters/ Digest
• Bharat Ki Sampada
• Wealth of India
• Scholarly Books & Monographs
• Popular Science Books
• Iconic Publications
• Miscellaneous
• Exhibitions
• Display Boards
• Outreach Events
• ISSN National Centre
• International Cooperation
• Events/ Meetings
• NISCAIR Online Periodicals Repository (NOPR)
• National Knowledge Resource Consortium (NKRC)
• National Science Digital Library (NSDL)
• National Science Library (NSL)
• National Union Catalogue (NUCSSI)
• Electronic Resources
• National Science Library
• Raw Materials' Herbarium & Museum
• ISO Certified DIRF Data Centre
• Audio Visual Studio
• Print Production
• Press Release
• Media Reports
• Science Aaj Kal
• Photo Gallery
• Notifications
• Annual Property Return
• CSIR Notifications
• Related Sites

Science Diplomacy

India's global digest of multidisciplinary science.

This open-access quarterly science digest was launched in 2017 and is dedicated to spreading awareness about the concept of science diplomacy and harnessing its power to achieve sustainable development. It encloses articles related to innovation diplomacy, techplomacy, STI diplomacy, etc., along with international MoUs, forthcoming events, recent publications, and policy developments. To foster attention on the current critical issues, it invites articles from distinguished experts in areas of science policy, diplomacy and technological innovations. The digest strives to create awareness on key current and future global issues and to promote the linkages between science, technology, innovation and international affairs.

All articles published in Science Diplomacy , like perspectives, opinions, commentaries, general articles, etc., are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view of CSIR-NIScPR.

ISSN: 2456-5318

Editor: Dr Monika Jaggi, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Guidelines for Authors

इस पृष्ठ का हिंदी अनुवाद निर्माणाधीन है।, register for e-alert, feedback form, * marked fields are mandatory.

CSIR-NIScPR is organising a Logo Competition for 80 years of CSIR

Diplomacy is the art and science of maintaining peaceful relationships between nations, groups, or individuals. Often, diplomacy refers to representatives of different groups discussing such issues as conflict, trade, the environment, technology, or maintaining security.

Geography, Human Geography, Social Studies, Civics, U.S. History, World History

Loading ...

Diplomacy is the art and science of maintaining peaceful relationships between nations , groups, or individuals. Often, diplomacy refers to representatives of different groups discussing such issues as conflict , trade , the environment , technology , or security . People who practice diplomacy are called diplomats . Diplomats try to help their own country, encourage cooperation between nations, and maintain peace. A group of diplomats representing one country that lives in another country is called a diplomatic mission . A permanent diplomatic mission is called an embassy . An ambassador is the lead diplomat at an embassy. A large diplomatic mission may have representation besides a single embassy. Other places of representation are called consulates . For example, the embassy of the United Kingdom is in the U.S. capital , Washington, D.C. The United Kingdom also has consulates in the U.S. cities of Atlanta, Georgia; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; New York City, New York; Orlando, Florida; and San Francisco, California. The British ambassador and the rest of the British diplomatic mission are responsible for representing British policies to the U.S. government , as well as assisting British people in the U.S. This often involves helping them with legal matters, such as visas or work permits . American diplomats work for a branch of the Department of State called the Foreign Service . More than 12,000 people work for the Foreign Service, helping Americans who travel abroad and pursuing American foreign policy . The U.S. has 265 diplomatic missions around the world. The largest U.S. diplomatic mission is in Mexico, which has an embassy in Mexico City and 22 consulates and consular agencies throughout the country. Ambassadors are appointed by the president of the United States. The U.S. has ambassadors in most countries, but not all. An ambassador or diplomatic mission does not represent the U.S. in Cuba, for instance. The U.S. had supported the government of Fulgencio Batista , until the dictator was overthrown by the Cuban Revolution in 1959. The U.S. withdrew diplomatic recognition from Cuba in 1961. Diplomatic recognition is the act of one nation or state accepting the independence and legitimacy of another nation or state. Today, the U.S. is represented by a branch of the Swiss embassy in Cuba—the United States Interests Section of the Embassy of Switzerland in Havana ( USINT Havana ). Similarly, Cuba is represented by another branch of the Swiss embassy in Washington. American diplomatic missions are staffed by foreign service officers and foreign service specialists . Foreign service officers are formal members of the Foreign Service. There are five major branches of work for foreign service officers: consular affairs (helping Americans living or visiting foreign countries); economic affairs; management affairs; political affairs; and public diplomacy . Public diplomacy is the practice of representing the U.S. in social and cultural activities, such as sports events, films, books, and radio broadcasts. Foreign service specialists provide important support services for diplomatic missions. This includes health care, construction and engineering , and English-language programs. Often, foreign service specialists must provide security for Americans in the event of a natural disaster or political unrest in a country. History of Diplomacy The art of diplomacy began in ancient times. Treaties between different cities in Mesopotamia , in what is now Iraq, date back to 2850 B.C.E. Leaders of Egypt and Canaan (an ancient country in the Middle East) exchanged diplomatic letters in the 14th century B.C. Writing on the walls of ancient Mayan buildings in what is now Mexico indicate that Mayan cities exchanged diplomats. Embassies were first established in northern Italy in the 14th century. For most of history, diplomacy was concerned with bilateral relations, or negotiations between two nations. A country or region often had dozens of trade or border agreements, each limited to a single other country or region. Bilateral relations are still a very common form of diplomacy. In the 20th century, diplomacy expanded. Today, the United Nations (UN), an international organization that works to promote cooperation and settle conflicts among nations, plays a large role in diplomacy. The General Assembly , the main body of the UN, has 195 members. Diplomacy also grew to include summit meetings. Summits are meetings between top government officials. Summits can be between national leaders, such as presidents or prime ministers . Economic summits often involve business leaders, as well as treasury secretaries or trade ministers. Camp David, in the U.S. state of Maryland, is the site of many summits between American presidents and foreign leaders. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter held an important summit with Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin . Egypt and Israel had been in conflict for more than 30 years. Often, as during the Six Day War of 1967, the conflict was violent. The summit between Carter, al-Sadat, and Begin resulted in the so-called “ Camp David Accords .” This established the basis for the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty . Begin and al-Sadat shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, and the treaty is still enforced today. The Camp David Accords are considered a triumph of diplomacy. Diplomacy also involves large international conferences . Like summits, international conferences are usually attended by heads-of-state or other national leaders. Conferences are usually much larger in scope—dozens of leaders may meet to discuss migration or border issues, trade, or the environment. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development, for instance, was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. More than a hundred heads-of-state attended the conference, in addition to thousands of professional diplomats and representatives of non-governmental organizations ( NGOs ). Diplomats at Rio’s so-called “ Earth Summit ” reached an agreement to limit carbon emissions . How Diplomacy Works Diplomacy is accomplished by negotiation, or bargaining. Usually, each group in a negotiation will ask for more than they expect to get. They then compromise, or give up some of what they want, in order to come to an agreement. Often, an outside diplomat will help with the negotiations. For example, Martti Ahtisaari, a Finnish diplomat working for the UN, helped Namibia gain independence from South Africa in 1990. Sometimes, one side in a negotiation refuses to compromise. When this happens, others involved in the negotiation may use diplomatic sanctions . Diplomatic sanctions involve the reduction or removal of all embassy staff from the offending country. Lighter diplomatic sanctions may involve the refusal of a president to visit the offending country or meet with its leaders. Nicaragua cut off all diplomatic relations with Israel, for instance, in 2010. Nicaragua was protesting Israel’s attack on a shipment of aid to the Gaza Strip . Countries may also threaten to use economic sanctions , or penalties. In 2006, many countries agreed not to trade with North Korea in an effort to stop the country from illegally testing nuclear weapons . Other times, diplomats threaten to use force if a settlement is not reached. In 1990, Iraq invaded the neighboring country of Kuwait. When Iraq refused to leave Kuwait, the United Nations approved a military response. A coalition , or group of nations working together, fought the Iraqi army, forcing them out of Kuwait. Successful negotiation results in a diplomatic agreement . The most formal kind of an agreement is a treaty, a written contract between countries. The Treaty of Versailles , for instance, formally ended World War I . It was signed in Versailles, France. Diplomats from the Central Powers , including Germany and Austria, were not allowed to negotiate the treaty. However, diplomats from other Central Powers nations and the Allied Powers , including the United States, approved the treaty. Some treaties require years of diplomatic negotiation. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) between the United States and the Soviet Union began in 1969. The talks continued through 1979. The treaties that resulted from these diplomatic negotiations (named SALT I and SALT II) reduced the number of nuclear weapons being produced. Another type of agreement is a convention , which is signed by multiple nations and becomes international law. The most famous are the Geneva Conventions , which outline the treatment of prisoners of war, civilians , and medical personnel in a war zone. The first convention was signed in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864. The fourth, and perhaps most important, was signed in 1949 after World War II . Protocols , the least formal diplomatic procedure, change or expand an existing agreement. The Kyoto Protocol is an update to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC was produced at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in Kyoto, Japan, was produced in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol aims to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere .

Free From Harm Top diplomats have immunity, or protection, from search, arrest, and lawsuits in the country to which they are sent. They cannot be fined, arrested, or harmed in any way, even during war, and they are not searched when they cross borders. This diplomatic immunity allows them to do their work and negotiate freely. Embassies are also not subject to the host country's rules. In fact, they are considered part of the territory of the sending country.

Recognition When a country declares independence, it needs to be recognized as independent by other countries. Countries may recognize new nations by receiving ambassadors and diplomatic missions. The first nations to recognize the new United States of America in 1779 were France, Morocco, and the Netherlands.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Free Diplomacy Essay Examples & Topics

Whether you are studying political science, international relations, law, or economics, you might be asked to write a diplomacy essay as a part of your coursework. This article aims to help you in this process.

Let’s start with the basics: what does diplomacy mean?

Diplomacy influences foreign governments’ decisions and behaviors through negotiation, conversation, and dialogue. It involves steps to prevent violence and armed conflicts worldwide by finding common ground and mutual interest. Indeed, it is an essential instrument in international relationships, and you should explain its importance in your essay on diplomacy. One crucial role of a diplomat and the field, in general, is to protect the country’s national interests. However, there is more to that. Diplomacy strives to create a better world, a more peaceful world.

As you can imagine, this topic is not easy. Our experts gathered some excellent subjects for your diplomacy essay to simplify the writing process for you. Additionally, we’ve combined some cases, ideas, and tips for your academic paper.

What Is Diplomacy Essay about?

When we speak about diplomacy and international relations, you cannot do it without mentioning diplomats and their job. Their work is significant. Yet, not everyone knows what their duties and responsibilities are. So, let’s define diplomats and understand what they do.

First of all, we should establish the difference between diplomats and ambassadors. Both represent a foreign nation in a target nation. However, while there can be many diplomats to a specific country, there can be only one ambassador.

Simply put:

An ambassador is the diplomat of the highest rank and position. An ambassador is a diplomat, but not all diplomats are ambassadors.

Nevertheless, both roles manage and contribute to diplomacy and international relations between the countries. Besides ambassadors, there are three other classes of diplomatic workers. All of them work to further the foreign interests of their country.

The role of the ambassador is to ensure the following:

• the promotion of friendly relationships between two countries,
• the furthering of the interests,
• the initiation of treaties and agreements.

11 Diplomacy Essay Topics

In this section, you will find unique diplomacy essay topics. We’ve combined this list for you to train or to use in your next assignment. For more ideas for your writing, try our topic generator .

These ideas for an essay on diplomacy are entirely original:

• Russian diplomacy before WW1.
• What is cultural diplomacy, and what does it allow to achieve?
• Different diplomacy models around the world.
• The one-dimensional approach of American diplomacy.
• The rise of the modern states and the effects of diplomacy.
• The war on terror and diplomatic approach to the problem.
• America’s diplomacy in the post 9/11 world.
• The role of diplomacy in the 19th century.
• The change in diplomacy from the 19th century to the 21st century.
• The Cold War diplomacy.
• Negotiations in international relations.

8 Diplomacy Research Topics

A research project is a much more complex assignment compared to an essay about diplomacy. For that reason, it requires much more investigation and knowledge from students. So, we have prepared a list of research paper topics on diplomacy for you.

These ideas will help you develop your thesis and reasoning:

• Position of women in international relations and diplomacy.

Women have played an essential role in international relations. Nonetheless, there are still not enough female voices, scholars, and diplomats in this field. This research paper analyzes what steps and policies the UN took to change this imbalance. You can also look at the root of the problem and track what caused this situation.

• Modern diplomacy and the importance of maintaining the balance of power politics .

This research topic should focus on the balance of power theory. Explain what principles are involved in maintaining it. An excellent subject for anyone seeing diplomacy as the primary tool to maintain peace around the globe.

• The future of digital diplomacy and its function .

Explore what digital diplomacy is, what countries have developed it. Elaborate on the benefits of traditional diplomacy. You can also tell about the history of eDiplomacy and bring some examples of its use.

• The history and the advancement of science diplomacy .

Why is it also called “hearts and minds” diplomacy? And what does it promote? Focus on the primary reasons why science diplomacy has evolved. How can it solve some of the most pending world issues?

• New realities in foreign affairs: diplomacy today .

This research topic is quite broad. You can try to focus on one or two aspects of modern diplomacy. For instance, the use of social media or doing diplomatic work under economic sanctions. It is up to you!

• The history of diplomacy and the critical aspects of Ancient Greek diplomacy .

This research paper is crucial not only for informational purposes. It will give an excellent overview of Roman Law. Here you should analyze similar aspects of contemporary diplomacy. Make sure to include some early diplomatic affairs and interstate relations in your research.

• The origin and the development of modern diplomacy .

Many of the contemporary diplomacy traditions have begun in Italy. Traceback how exactly modern diplomacy started. Where was one of the first embassies established? Why? One thing is clear: the field has significantly evolved.

• How to overcome limitations of traditional diplomacy .

Today diplomats and ambassadors can use digital technologies, social media, and blockchain. These tools can help them overcome some of the most pending issues of conventional diplomacy. Moreover, such technologies can transcend time, space, languages, and borders.

Thanks for reading the article till the end. We hope you have enjoyed it. You will find diplomacy essays and research papers below.

107 Best Diplomacy Essay Examples

Around-the-table negotiations in diplomacy, community service should be required by most citizens of a country.

• Words: 1057

Negotiations in Public Diplomacy

• Words: 2113

The Concept of Generation Gap Bridging in the Workplace

• Words: 1367

Cambodia: Strength and Weaknesses

All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means, diplomatic protocols and privileges.

• Words: 1937

Ponzi Scheme by Bernie Madoff

Kofi annan leadership traits.

• Words: 1419

Importance of Diplomacy in Preventing and Stopping Wars

Diplomatic immunity.

• Words: 1651

Diplomacy and Power: International Actors in the Middle East

The future of global diplomacy and credibility, public diplomacy campaign for uae, public diplomacy in the united kingdom, prospects and pitfalls in changing international relations, diplomacy: future trends and development, the cold war and engagement, intercultural competences useful for diplomats, war and diplomacy in the politics of a nation.

• Words: 2247

Why the UAE Should Focus More on Eastward Expansion

• Words: 5226

The Naked Diplomat and the Future of the UAE Diplomacy

• Words: 1100

Negotiation Process: The Role of Gender and Culture

Cultural diplomacy and “the best job in the world” project.

• Words: 1061

Diplomatic Negotiation and Communication Techniques

The iraq war and multilateral diplomacy.

• Words: 1165

Camp David 2000 Summit

Cultural diplomacy and the united states.

• Words: 1227

Definitions of Diplomacy Analysis

Significance of jerusalem to the jews and the muslims.

• Words: 3258

Modern Diplomacy: Protocol as Way of Diplomatic Life

Iranian hostage crisis: negotiations and diplomacy.

• Words: 1231

The New U.S. Public Diplomacy vs. The New French Cultural Diplomacy

Cultural diplomacy and soft power, diplomacy: international business etiquette, diplomacy: foreign policy analysis, diplomacy in the middle east, athenian democracy: pay for public service.

• Words: 1188

Digital Diplomacy and Policy Advancement

Diplomatic negotiation and international peacemaking, “the new public diplomacy” by jan melissen.

• Words: 2784

Contemporary Diplomacy of Iran

• Words: 2279

Public Diplomacy Issues Analysis

• Words: 1765

Environmental Negotiations and Their Difficulties

• Words: 2467

Diplomacy: Two Level Games and Bargaining Outcomes

• Words: 2013

US Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review

• Words: 1770

Celebrity Diplomacy in Paul Vallely’s Article

• Words: 1108

Tom Fletcher’s “Naked Diplomacy” for the UAE

• Words: 2208

Challenges of Consular Collaboration in the 21st Century

Digital media diplomacy for the united networks, apprentice diplomats’ work and recommendations.

• Words: 1156

“Naked Diplomacy” by Tom Fletcher

• Words: 2772

The United Arab Emirates’ Economic Diplomacy

Vienna convention: diplomatic & consular relations.

• Words: 1329

Evolution of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

• Words: 1143

Naked Diplomacy: Power and Statecraft in the Digital Age

• Words: 2785

The Role of Cultural Diplomacy in Enhancing Ties

Celebrity diplomacy in paul valley’s article, social media impact on digital diplomacy, theories and fundamentals of protocol and diplomacy, henry kissinger’s success in diplomatic negotiations.

• Words: 1171

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

• Words: 1097

Diplomacy Importance in International Relations

Ethical leadership in diplomacy, mohamed ait kadi as a diplomatic negotiator.

• Words: 1381

The Application of Soft Power in Qatar

• Words: 13349

Enhancing Global Governance: Towards a New Diplomacy?

• Words: 1178

Richard Nixon’s Diplomacy During the Cold War

• Words: 1401

Kennedy’s Doctrine and US Diplomacy

• Words: 1129

Diplomatic History of Australia

• Words: 2006

Syrian Crisis and Diplomatic Policies

Radical islam’ threats – tanzania, kenya, and uganda.

• Words: 3302

International Security and Climate Change

• Words: 1676

US Hits Iran with New Sanctions

• Words: 1807

The Gulf War’s Diplomatic Choice

The adoption of agenda 21 of the 1992 united nations conference on environment and development, seoul policy toward north korea nuclear crisis.

• Words: 1518

The Impact of Newly Emerged Actors, Groupings and NGOs on the Conduct of the Contemporary Diplomacy

United states office of war information.

• Words: 1430

Environmental Issue in China

• Words: 3129

Public Diplomacy and its Impact on Foreign Policies

• Words: 4539

Down the Road Uncharted: The Path of a Leader, Ali Aujali

The chronicle of north korea’s nuclear power and diplomacy.

• Words: 2860

Faulty Negotiations and the Strike

• Words: 1010

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand

Multilateral diplomacy in the 21st century.

• Words: 1406

Emergency plan for a city in Connecticut

• Words: 1089

Emergency Management in US

• Words: 2245

Nuclear Program in North Korea

• Words: 1099

Issue on Public Administration; Social Equity

• Words: 4583

Nuclear Diplomatic Relations

The tradition of non use of nuclear weapon.

• Words: 1324

Diplomacy between France and Talleyrand

New public management can be considered to be both a panacea and a plague to public administration.

• Words: 4020

Public Administration in America: Grants to Help Homeless

• Words: 1191

Critique of the U.S & the U.N Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• Words: 1275

How Has The Wikileaks Cable-Gate Scandal Affected The Institution Of Diplomacy?

The us energy diplomacy.

• Words: 1384

The Malayan Emergency Counter Insurgency Success

• Words: 1402

Diplomacy in Washington, DC: Human Relationships in a Multicultural Environment

• Words: 2138

Comparing and Contrasting US Diplomatic Approach to Russia and China

• Words: 1157

Why Did President Obama Fail in His Attempts to Stop Israel Building Settlement and Prevent the Palestinians from Applying for UN Membership?

• Words: 1203

Organizational Research and Theory

• Words: 2921

Doha Round Development Failure and its Impact on Globalization

• Words: 3667

“Thinking in Systems” by Dana Meadows

• Words: 4088

Public Involvement and Community Development in Australia

• Words: 1365

A life of diplomacy and environmental justice, advocating for soil worldwide

By Francesca Merlo

In Florence, Italy, as 1500 experts celebrated the centenary of the International Union for Soil Sciences (IUSS) with an International Conference between 19-21 May, Penny Wensley was honoured with the Distinguished Service Medal. "100 years of soil science", she told Vatican News, is reason to celebrate, as she reflected on her extensive career in diplomacy and her long-lasting commitment to environmental advocacy.

A Diplomat’s Path to Soil Advocacy

Wensley's journey with soil goes hand in hand with her extensive diplomatic career, spanning four decades. "I had many, many postings overseas: as Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, for three years; in New York for four years; High Commissioner to India; consul general to Hong Kong... and ambassador to France. And among all those postings, I was also Australia's ambassador for the environment," she said.

The role of diplomacy in environmental preservation

Wensley emphasised the critical role of diplomacy in environmental preservation. "At the global level, it's governments that decide where the priorities lie... there is a need for diplomats as advisors to government," she stated. Despite soil often being the "poor cousin" in environmental discussions compared to water and air, Penelope Wensley sees a growing recognition of its importance as we begin to really suffer the issues of climate change and biodiversity loss globally.

From Rio to Queensland

But Wensley’s relationship with environmental issues, and soil, started in the early nineties, marked by significant global events such as the Earth Summit and the Rio Summit. "The negotiation of the big conventions: climate change, biodiversity, and the convention to combat drought and desertification introduced me to soil, gave me a passion for sustainability and the better management of our natural resources," she said.

After leaving the foreign service, Wensley served as the Governor of Queensland, one of Australia's largest states. "We had a lot of natural disasters: terrible drought, terrible floods, cyclones... the effects of climate change and global warming. As governor, I visited so many communities that were devastated by these extreme weather events," she recalled.

The power of Indigenous communities

One community which is impossible to ignore, in Australia and throughout the world, is the indigenous community. Indigenous people have invaluable knowledge in the fight for climate justice, as Wensley noted, "The population of Australia's indigenous peoples has been on our ancient continent for thousands and thousands of years... their wisdom and knowledge must be taken into account alongside contemporary so-called Western science”.

And the world is advancing in this field, she added, explaining that people are starting to understand more and more the invaluable role that indigenous communities can play, and must be encouraged to play, in decision making.

Young people must also be heard said Wensley, as she spoke of this other community with a touch of "envy: I am at the end of my career, and theirs' is just starting she says, adding that they are working with passion. “It's fantastic to see so many young people at this Congress," she noted.

Aligning with Pope Francis’ teachings

All these themes: climate justice, indigenous rights and just diplomacy resonate deeply with the teachings of Pope Francis in his encyclical "Laudato si" on the Care for our Common Home. Wensley sees these connections clearly: "Conferences like this are about taking better care of our environment. It's a special celebration, inviting reflection on moral and ethical issues of responsibility."

A celebration

As the conference draws to a close, Penelope Wensley extends her gratitude to the Italian organisers, whom she says "have done a stupendous job". From an expected 700, 1500 participated, marking a significant mobilisation for this historic celebration and for this vital theme. 

Thank you for reading our article. You can keep up-to-date by subscribing to our daily newsletter. Just click here

More upcoming events:

Listen to our podcasts

Subscribe to our newsletters

To get the latest news

Papal audiences

Daily readings

Saint of the day

EssayEmpire

Diplomacy essay.

This example Diplomacy Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Diplomacy is conventionally understood to be the practice by which states represent themselves and their interests to one another. However, because something like diplomacy clearly predates the modern European system of states, because other actors in addition to states are increasingly said to engage in diplomacy, and because, as Hedley Bull notes, most of us have a notion of what it means for people to act diplomatically in everyday life, the exclusive association of diplomacy with the relations of states is untenable and becoming increasingly so.

Answers to the questions “What is diplomacy?” and “Who may properly be said to conduct it?” vary over time and across space. Diplomacy is defined neither by the types of actors on behalf of which it is undertaken nor the status of those actors vis-à-vis one another in the sense of their being sovereign and equal. What all instances of it seem to presume and affirm, however, are the following four assumptions:

• That people live in groups that regard themselves as separate from, yet needing or wanting relations with, one another;
• That these relations are somehow distinctive and different from relations within groups, in that people believe themselves to be under fewer obligations to those whom they regard as others;
• That these relations require careful handling by specialists; and
• That these specialists develop a measure of solidarity from their common experience.

Where these four assumptions are in play, we find relations that we would recognize as diplomacy.

Prestate Diplomacy

Accounts of diplomacy often imagine its origins in encounters between prehistoric groups of human beings. The accuracy of these efforts is doubtful. Nevertheless, they highlight the problems posed by the presence of strangers in a community and the development of what we would recognize as notions of immunity to address this problem. There seems to be a near-universal value that strangers carrying messages between communities should be protected and well treated, even when relations with those who sent them are not good. The Amarna tablets contain an archive of messages that were sent to Pharaohs Amenophis III and Akhenaten in the fourteenth century BCE from the leaders of their clients in the Levant and from the rival great kings of Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti, and Mitanni. The correspondence deals with attempts to arrange marriages, the exchange of gifts, visits of senior advisors, and appeals for help.

Diplomacy’s relationship with commerce is highlighted by the fact that missions traveled along caravan routes. We get intimations of the importance of prestige and intelligence but less sense of a system of continuous relations incorporating shared values. Diplomacy also can be seen in some of the great religious texts; for example, the Assyrian use of Hebrew, rather than Aramaic—then the language of diplomatic intercourse— in a parlay so that the inhabitants of Jerusalem might hear their fate debated (2 Kings 1:6–7). More recent diplomacy can be read of in the Koran, and between it and the Biblical example above, extensive evidence and records exist of relations between peoples of the ancient empires of the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia. These accounts culminate in the Greek experience, plural in character and interesting, with its use of locals (proxenos) to represent other cities and the rarity of representatives with plenipotentiary negotiating powers. Rome and China are presented as less interesting because of universal ambitions and self-preoccupations that are said to be inimical to both diplomacy and their own well-being.

Diplomacy Of States

Contemporary developments have rekindled interest in the diplomacy of the ancient world. Nevertheless, the story of states and what is confusingly called modern, classical, traditional, or old diplomacy remains central to the story of diplomacy as a whole. This began to emerge in fifteenth-century Italy with the decline of the empire’s and the papacy’s secular power and flour ished in eighteenth-century Europe before spreading, while mutating, to the rest of the world. The story is dominated by questions about who is to be represented, how, and with what sort of problems for those representing them. The answer, that it should be sovereigns, and increasingly sovereign states, was more asserted than argued. The sense that it could be something bigger than states receded into a concern with peace and the dilemma presented when sovereigns asked their servants to threaten the latter. This gave rise to a literature on the qualities required by those representing sovereigns, the art of negotiation, and the conditions in which diplomats might be most effective.

The value of this literature has been doubted as anachronistic in its focus on the conduct of gentlemen at court, platitudinous in its appeal to common virtues, and ingenuous in suggesting these virtues actually prevail in effective diplomacy. There is something to all these criticisms, as there is to the rejoinders that “tact and intelligence” remain important, and many contemporary insights, for example on the importance of “ripeness” or body language in negotiations, are not new. As the site of sovereignty shifted from the monarch to the state and the people, this was reflected in discussions of the qualities of diplomats. So too was the emerging sense of diplomats as a distinct class of persons with their own outlook on, requirements in, and priorities for international relations. Concerns about the immunities and privileges needed to protect the work and the reputations of individual diplomats increasingly found expression in terms of how the whole body or corps of diplomats might to be safeguarded and facilitated. By the seventeenth century, this corps or “freemasonry” was seen as giving expression to a European republic of shared interests and ways of seeing the world. By the eighteenth century, the idea of la raison de système, serving initially as a descant to la raison d’état but eventually taking priority over state interests, had emerged, and it was possible to identify a system of modern European states with a corresponding diplomatic system of bilateral relations undertaken primarily through resident embassies and foreign ministries staffed by personnel animated by a sense of themselves as servants of their respective states and guardians of the society of which their states were members.

Since then, it is generally agreed that this system has been battered by a series of social and scientific revolutions and by the huge expansion of productive, destructive, and communicative capacities in which these resulted, although with consequences that are less clear. This is illustrated by the two great channels that diplomatic thinking about la raison de système carved out for itself. The first identified diplomacy with the balance of power. In this view, the main tasks of diplomats was to get those they represented to act with restraint—self-restraint where possible and external restraint by deterrence where necessary. This idea attracted controversy, but nothing in the great scientific and social revolutions at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries undermined it in principle. Overstimulated and over endowed national and populist states might suffer restraints on their practical and moral ambitions from diplomats less gladly, but getting them to accept restraints remained important.

However, not all the representation, reporting, bargaining, information dissemination, and intelligence-gathering activities of diplomats can be interpreted in terms of maintaining balances of power. Diplomats always had more to do, and there was always more going on in international relations, a state of affairs made more apparent by the new material and social technologies of the nineteenth century. Sovereigns and their diplomats might travel more easily, embassies might have more and easier access to information than they had in the past, but now and increasingly, so did other people. And in so doing, they also developed a greater say in what international relations were, and ought to be, about. These changes provided impetus for the second great channel in diplomatic thinking about la raison de système, seeing it less as a system of states and more as one for regulating them and rendering them less harmful. The principal consequences of this were the multilateral and conference diplomacy that appeared in the nineteenth century and gathered strength after the two world wars. The European congresses of the early nineteenth century sought to improve the great powers’ attempts to maintain international order on their own terms. The Hague and Geneva conventions attempted to reduce the prospect of war and its consequences. And the League of Nations and the United Nations sought first to regulate, then to reform the conduct of their members by encouraging multilateral collaboration.

Bilateral diplomacy directed at reconciling the interests of particular states was supplemented by multilateral efforts directed at seeking to ease common problems and improve the well-being of all. The growth of multilateral and conference diplomacy resulted in changes in the status of certain established types of diplomacy and diplomats. Consular diplomacy, concerned with private citizens, attracted more resources and began to lose the secondary status it had enjoyed when compared to political work. The broadly educated “generalists” gifted at a certain kind of human relations were supplemented by experts who had a grasp of the complex technical issues that increasingly became the subjects of negotiations. And the autonomy and negotiating capacity of the resident ambassador were widely seen to decline as a result of the emergence of the telegraph, the telephone, and air travel. A profession based on information scarcity and the costliness of communications was often presented as facing existential challenges from these innovations that made information accessible, communication cheap, and travel swift.

These changes were not matched by developments in diplomatic theory. The great burst of innovative thinking in diplomacy, beginning in fifteenth-century Europe and developing over the course of the next two centuries, ended with Cardinal Richelieu’s Testament Politique around 1688, and its practical expression was completed with the codifications of the Vienna règlement of 1815 and the modifications of Aixla-Chapelle three years later. What followed may be broadly interpreted as application (in the form of diplomatic history), exposition (to aid in the training of diplomats), and refinement (in response to critics). Innovations in diplomatic theory and practice came from outside the profession. The construction of international organizations, for example, may be presented as driven by the concerns of politics and political theory with how to escape from anarchy. The concern with commercial diplomacy and economic statecraft can be rooted in the rise of political economy. The focus on how foreign policy is actually made can be traced back to research into individual and group psychology, the operations of complex organizations, and rational choice models, as these have been applied to political behavior. Most recently, attempts to create a more open and representative diplomacy have applied the insights and understandings of marketing and public relations. Diplomatic studies certainly, and diplomacy and diplomats probably, have suffered as a result. Indeed, for much of the postwar period, it was possible to maintain that all three might be in terminal decline. Since the end of the cold war, however, this state of affairs has undergone an almost complete transformation, for reasons that are both surprising and paradoxical. Somehow, as our sense that a states system provides the basic political framework of the world has weakened, interest in diplomacy, diplomats, and the study of both has revived.

Diplomacy Beyond States

Diplomacy beyond states may be understood in two senses:

• A temporal sense in which we think of states and their diplomacy fading, and
• A conceptual sense by which we are reminded that diplomacy is not necessarily the exclusive preserve of states or professional diplomats.

Empirically grounded international relations research has develop both senses by testing conventional understandings of how social worlds are believed to work. At the system level, the expectation has been tested and confirmed that states regarded as most important will have the most diplomatic representatives from other countries in their capitals. In the study of diplomacy and foreign policy, positivist approaches have tracked and demonstrated the disaggregation of entities conventionally treated as wholes. The consequences of this kind of inquiry for our understandings of diplomacy have been impressive. We find foreign ministries do not dominate or even coordinate a country’s foreign relations. Other branches of government engage in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy and employ people acting diplomatically to represent them. Governments, even understood as loose ensembles of actors and institutions, do not exercise a monopoly on the conduct of the external relations of their countries. Private actors of all sorts are also engaged. Indeed, it becomes difficult to maintain the distinction between internal and external worlds on which the idea of international relations depends.

Investigators have not been sure what to do with these sorts of discoveries. Traditionalists insist that they are the product of category confusions. One cannot get closer to understanding how diplomacy operates as a meaningful social action by tracing behavioral patterns with greater precision. To say diplomats do not actually represent their states or sovereigns in the sense of standing in place of them is to misunderstand the nature of representation. Social worlds cohere despite evidence and knowledge that undermine the assumptions on which they rest, but we are still stuck with knowing that how things appear is not the full story. An alternative to the traditionalist reluctance to accept empirical evidence, therefore, is to use positivist approaches as a basis for critique and prescription. Thus, research has looked at why traditional institutions of diplomacy have been losing influence and why traditional diplomatic activities have become less effective, and it offers advice about how diplomats might become more effective by shifting, for example, from being communicators of positions and policies to becoming the instigators of coalitions of different people seeking to advance shared interests. Such approaches have great practical value but court inconsistencies, especially when governments apply the disaggregative insight to diplomats of other countries but not to their own diplomats and those diplomats’ claims to act on behalf of their countries.

Paradoxically, given diplomacy’s conventional identification as a conservative and even reactionary social practice, post positivist approaches have shown the most promise of innovation in diplomatic theory by unhitching it from state practices and exploring what people in different times and places have understood to be diplomacy. The thrust of these arguments can be critical, focusing on the alienation, estrangement, and exploitation that diplomacy may be implicated in reproducing. It can be emancipatory, emphasizing the virtues of conventional diplomatic attributes like ambiguity and imagination for improving human relations. And it can be whimsical, examining the more banal and human aspects of diplomatic life to demonstrate the tyrannies of circumscribed thought and action that closed and archaic social structures can impose upon those trapped within them. These approaches have introduced diplomatic studies to the constructivist and constitutive approaches to explanation and understanding in the broader field of international relations. They have also demonstrated how modes of thought associated with diplomats and diplomacy can enrich our accounts of international and social realities in general. Diplomats have long been familiar with the extent to which social realities are constructed, in the sense of being produced and reproduced with varying degrees of self-consciousness by the ways in which people live and the necessarily ambiguous consequences of this being so.

Far from fading, therefore, at a time of great change, we should expect diplomats, diplomacy, and diplomatic theory to prosper as new constellations of actors and new identities seek to establish the terms of their own existence and recognition of them as such, just as they did in fifteenth-century Europe. This is illustrated by the emergence of the “new public diplomacy.” Previously regarded as poor diplomacy of low standing or propaganda, because it violates the principle of nonintervention, public diplomacy in its “new” iteration is presented as repowering everybody (including states) and transforming international relations into a genuine dialogue of peoples and people. A major research effort has developed, with the funding to support it, exploring how to make public diplomacy more effective and evaluate it. The enthusiasm for this effort is prompted by the need for economic competitiveness and the need to manage the cultural and civilizational dislocations engendered by globalization, especially since the 9/11 attacks on the United States. In America in particular, agencies like the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (www. state.gov/r/adcompd/) and the U.S. Information Agency/U.S. Public Diplomacy Office (http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/) have been strengthened to address this latter challenge. The success of the campaigns to ban landmines, to press banks to provide debt relief for poor countries, and to persuade others to reduce the carbon footprints of their economies demonstrate elements of a global civil society already talking to one another and acting to make their own contribution to what happens in international relations. “Outsiders,” as traditionalists point out, may have always been engaged so. What is novel and important, however, is the high importance attached to these activities by nearly everyone in the study of diplomacy.

Ever since Burke anglicized the term diplomatique in 1796, diplomacy has been a practice characterized by oppositions: universal yet specialized, commonsense yet esoteric, in decline yet in short supply, admired yet distrusted, and important yet neglected. In one sense, it involves representations to one another of collective identities that are necessarily ambiguous. In another, it merely refers to the state of affairs that arises between people who wish to live separately and maintain their own identities but who want or believe they must have relations with each other. Either way, general interest in diplomacy, diplomats, and how to act diplomatically always increases when, as now, the tensions between the pluralist and solidarist aspirations of human beings, on the one hand, and the pluralist and solidarist demands of the ways they actually live, on the other, weigh heavily upon them.

Bibliography:

• Anderson, M. S. The Rise of Modern Diplomacy. London: Longman, 1993. Bacon, Francis. “Of Negotiating.” In Diplomatic Classics: Selected Texts from Commynes to Vattel, edited by G. Berridge, 83–87. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2004.
• Bátora, Jozef.“Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-Sized States: Norway and Canada.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 1, no. 1 (2006): 53–80.
• Berridge, Geoffrey. “Amarna Diplomacy: A Full-Fledged Diplomatic System?” In Amarna Diplomacy:The Beginnings of International Relations, edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, 212–224. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
• Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. London: Prentice Hall/Wheatsheaf, 1995.
• “The Origins of the Diplomatic Corps: Rome to Constantinople.” In The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society, edited by Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman, 15–30. Basingstoke: Palgrave/ Macmillan, 2007.
• Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan, 1977.
• Butterfield, Herbert. “The Balance of Power.” In Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, edited by Herbert Butterfield Herbert and Martin Wight, 132–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• “Diplomacy.” In Studies in Diplomatic History: Essays in Honour of David Bayne Horn, edited by Ragnhild Hatton and Matthew Anderson, 357–373. London: Archon Books, Longman, London, 1970.
• Callières, François de. De la manière de négocier avec les souverains, de l’utilité des négotiations, du choix des ambassadeurs et des envoys, et des qualitez nécessaires pou réussir dans ces employs. Paris: Brunet, 1717.
• Constantinou, Costas. On the Way to Diplomacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996..
• Cooper, Andrew. Celebrity Diplomacy. Boulder: Paradigm, 2007.
• Der Derian, James. On Diplomacy. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
• Fitzpatrick, Kathy. “Advancing the New Public Diplomacy: A Public Relations Perspective.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2, no. 3 (2007): 187–211.
• Galtung, Johan, and Marie Ruge. “Patterns of Diplomacy.” Journal of Peace Research 2, no. 2 (1965): 101–135.
• Hamilton, Keith, and Richard Langhorne. The Practice of Modern Diplomacy: Its Evolution,Theory, and Administration. London: Routledge, 1995.
• Hocking, Brian, ed. Foreign Ministries: Change and Adaption. Basingstoke, U.K.: Macmillan, 1999.
• Hocking, Brian, and Donna Lee. “The Diplomacy of Proximity and Specialness: Enhancing Canada’s Representation in the United States.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 1, no. 1 (2006): 29–52.
• Hudson, David, and Donna Lee. “The Old and New Significance of Political Economy in Diplomacy.” Review of International Studies 30, 3 (2004): 343–360.
• Iqbal, Asif. The Prophet’s Diplomacy:The Art of Negotiation as Conceived and Developed by the Prophet of Islam. Cape Cod, Mass.: Claude Stark, 1975. Izre’el, Shlomo. The Amarna Tablets. n.d. www.tau.ac.il/humanities/semitic/amarna.html.
• Leira, Halvard, and Iver Neumann. “Consular Representation in an Emerging State:The Case of Norway.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 3, no. 1 (2008): 1–19.
• Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955. Neumann, Iver. “To Be a Diplomat,” International Studies Perspectives 6, no. 1 (2005): 72–93.
• Nicolson, Harold. The Evolution of the Diplomatic Method. London: Macmillan, 1954.
• Pecquet, Antoine. Discours sur l’art de négocier (Discourse on the Art of Negotiation), 1737, translated by Aleksandra Gruzinska and Murray D. Sirkis, vol. 140 in Currents in Comparative Romance Languages and Literatures Series. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004.
• Potter, Evan, ed. Cyber-Diplomacy: Managing Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002.
• Rana, Kishan. Bilateral Dipolacy. New Delhi: Manas 2002. Riordan, Shaun. The New Diplomacy. Cambridge, Polity, 2003.
• Satow, Ernest. A Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 2nd ed. London: Longman, Green, 1922.
• Sharp, Paul. “Making Sense of Citizen Diplomacy: The Citizens of Duluth, Minnesota as International ” International Studies Perspectives, 2 (2001): 131–150.
• “The Public Diplomacy of Revolutionary States and Outlaw Regimes.” In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by Jan Melissen. Basingstoke: U.K.: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005.
• Sofer, Sasson. “The Diplomat as Stranger.” Diplomacy and Statecraft 8, no. 3 (1997): 179–186.
• Stearns, M. Talking to Strangers. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf .
• Watson, Adam. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
• Wiseman, Geoffrey. “Pax American: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture.” International Studies  Perspectives 6, no. 4 (2005): 409–430.
• How to Write a Political Science Essay
• Political Science Essay Topics
• Political Science Essay Examples

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Special offer!

GET 10% OFF WITH  24START  DISCOUNT CODE

Related posts.

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Abstract Submission: There is a mandatory abstract submission deadline on May 15, 2024, six days before full paper submissions are due. While it will be possible to edit the title and abstract until the full paper submission deadline, submissions with “placeholder” abstracts that are rewritten for the full submission risk being removed without consideration. This includes titles and abstracts that either provide little or no semantic information (e.g., "We provide a new semi-supervised learning method.") or describe a substantively different claimed contribution.  The author list cannot be changed after the abstract deadline. After that, authors may be reordered, but any additions or removals must be justified in writing and approved on a case-by-case basis by the program chairs only in exceptional circumstances. 

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond.  Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.  

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book.  NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions.  The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process.  Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged.  The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. 

Author responses:   Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period.  These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview.  These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions:   Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks. 

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.