CONCLUSION
The Westphalian system of sovereign states has engendered exclusive norms of recognition which, on the whole, have been detrimental to the resolution of conflicts involving other actors than recognized states.
Today's notions of a globalized world envisage an international society with a diminished role, if not obsolescence, of the state and enhanced roles of other actors, such as NGOs engaged in conflict resolution, private military companies (PMCs), transnational terrorist networks and organized crime. Paradoxically, “the virtually universal recognition of territorial sovereignty as the organizing principle of international politics” goes hand in hand with an equally clear “tendency toward erosion of the exclusivity associated with the traditional notion of territoriality” (Kratochwil, 1986: 27). This raises the question whether diplomacy, understood as an interstate institution, will be able to contribute to the resolution of contemporary and future complex conflicts, involving heterogeneous actors.To be sure, diplomacy has become a more complex practice, involving many different actors. Yet, it has also shown its resilience and adaptability to new circumstances. For instance, in cases of complex political emergencies, a whole range of diplomatic tools are required and performed by states and non-state actors alike, such as multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, peacekeeping, economic and humanitarian aid to assist civilian reconstruction and peacemaking. Hence, most diplomats recognize the need of multiple tracks of diplomacy. Contemporary terrorism, however, does pose a particular challenge to diplomacy, in the sense that terrorists loathe the diplomatic rules of engagement, such as communication and negotiation. At the same time, the “war on terror” has in many ways produced counterproductive results, which is why varieties of “soft instruments of power,” such as prevention, persuasion and coordination of international diplomatic efforts, are suggested as more productive.
In sum, diplomacy remains a vital institution for effective conflict resolution, even in a world where interstate conflicts are not the only - or even the most serious - problems. At the same time, diplomacy offers no panacea, and there are diplomatic norms and practices that are not always conducive to conflict resolution. Diplomacy, in short, is a perennial international institution that can be regarded as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for successful conflict resolution.