The words “diplomacy” and “diplomatic” are used for several different meanings.

In fact, the words have been characterized as “monstrously imprecise,” simultaneously sig­nifying “content, character, method, manner and art” (Marshall, 1990: 7). According to Sir Peter Marshall (1990), at least six related meanings may be distinguished, all of which have a bearing on conflict resolution.

First, “diplomacy” sometimes refers to the content of foreign affairs as a whole. Diplomacy then becomes more or less synonymous with foreign policy. Several books and articles portraying the diplomacy of countries X, Y and Z are indicative of this usage. Second, “diplomacy” may connote the conduct of foreign policy. The word is then used as a synonym of statecraft. Henry Kissinger’s book Diplomacy (1994), which draws on his experiences as US Secretary of State, is a case in point. Ostensibly, the broad understanding of diplomacy in terms of foreign policy or statecraft is more common in the United States than in Europe (cf. James, 1993: 92; Sharp, 1999: 37).

A third connotation of diplomacy focuses on the management of international relations by negotiation. Thus, the Oxford English Dictionary defines diplomacy as “the con­duct of international relations by negotia­tion.” Adam Watson (1982: 33) offers a similar definition as “negotiations between political entities which acknowledge each other’s independence.” In more elaborate terms, G.R. Berridge (1995: 1) characterizes diplomacy as “the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law, and by other peaceful means (such as gathering information or engendering goodwill) which are either directly or indirectly designed to promote negotiation.”

Fourth, diplomacy may be understood as the use of diplomats, organized in a diplomatic service. This usage is more time-bound, as the organization and professionalization of diplomacy is rather recent.

Fifth, diplomacy, and especially the adjec­tive “diplomatic,” often refers to the manner in which relations are conducted. To be diplomatic means to use “intelligence and tact,” to quote Ernest Satow's (1979: 3) classical formulation. A sixth, related concep­tualization is to understand diplomacy more specifically as the art or skills of professional diplomats. The craftsmanship of diplomats includes shared norms and rituals as well as a shared language, characterized by courtesy, nonredundancy and constructive ambiguity (cf. Cohen, 1981: 32-5).

To be sure, all these different conceptual­izations can be related to conflict resolution. Diplomatic efforts to resolve international conflicts constitute integral parts of the foreign policy and statecraft of the involved states; they invariably include negotiations; they engage professional diplomats, and rely on their mores and skills. When related to conflict resolution, diplomacy is perhaps most commonly understood as diplomatic practice. As noted, negotiation is the most promi­nent practice associated with diplomacy, with mediation as an important subcategory. Negotiation and mediation are subjects of the chapters by Zartman and Bercovitch in this Handbook and will not be treated at length here. Suffice it to point out that the prefix “diplomatic” implies that these and other practices are carried out by diplomats, that is, official representatives of states.

An alternative understanding of diplomacy, which transcends the ambiguity referred to initially, avoids duplication with other chapters and facilitates a discussion of its contributions to conflict resolution, is in terms of a transhistorical, international institution (cf. Jonsson and Hall, 2005). Diplomacy, like war, can be seen as a perennial institution, influencing relations between polities throughout history.