Abstract
While international historians and policy practitioners regularly highlight the utility of multilateral diplomacy as a quintessential “strategy of the weak,” International Relations (IR) scholars have generally downplayed the impact of diplomatic choices. The tools within IR theory to assess the impact of diplomacy remain underdeveloped, contributing to an inability to account for a highly proximate source of international influence. This article argues for a theoretical reengagement with the subject of multilateral diplomacy and, using insights from Social Network Analysis, develops a Diplomatic Impact Framework. Building on the novel concept of replaceability, the article contributes theoretically to the literature on diplomacy, as well as on small and middle powers. This framework captures the fundamentally relational character of diplomacy, isolating analytically this form of structural power from the influence conferred by superior material or institutional resources. Drawing extensively on a multinational collection of diplomatic documents and first-hand accounts, this multidisciplinary article probes the plausibility of the framework through a detailed comparative case study of Canada’s diplomatic influence at the United Nations General Assembly throughout two international security crises: the Korean War and the Suez Crisis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
I do not analyse or generate any datasets, because my work takes a theoretical approach and relies exclusively on published historical materials.
Notes
Consistent with the findings of Iver B. Neumann (2012: 33), this article regards information-gathering as the principal activity of modern diplomats.
Effective representation, for instance, relies heavily on being able to access the right contact to further a particular governmental aim. Negotiation analysts highlight the importance of moving past negotiating positions to probe the underlying interests that form the basis for negotiating preferences. See, for instance: Raiffa 1982.
Pouliot 2016.
Carpenter 2011.
Waltz 1979.
Henke 2019.
Snidal et al. 2024.
Mesquita 2024.
Hampson with Hart 1995: 19.
Kamau et al. 2018: 262.
Pouliot 2016: 136–137.
Long 2022: 41.
See, for example: Kamau et al. 2018.
Lijphart 1963.
See, for instance, Greenhill and Lupu 2017.
Roger and Rowan 2022.
Maoz 2012.
Kahler 2009: 12.
This does not imply that degree centrality is not highly important. It most certainly is. It is also possible that a node can have both the highest degree and betweenness centrality within a given network. The emphasis on betweenness centrality, however, reflects the pivotal position that certain actors can occupy in multilateral settings. Such positions may also be more attainable for small states acting in relation to larger ones.
Snidal et al. 2024.
Mesquita 2024.
This assumes that actors exchange information with equal probability and that such information flows along the shortest path (geodesic).
Ferguson 2017: 46, 111.
Goldberg et al. 2016.
Kahler 2009: 11–12.
Admittedly, this distinction is somewhat stylized. In practice, the line between the two blurs.
While some of the warmth of relations is circumstantial, it is also partly a deliberate decision to dedicate the time and effort to cultivating interpersonal ties.
Beardsley 2008.
For a discussion of how employing a mediator can feature short versus longer term dynamics, see: Beardsley 2011.
Kinne 2014: 249.
MacMillan 2006.
Goddard 2018: 768.
Putnam 2000: 22–24.
Granovetter 1973.
Burt 2004.
Neumann 2012: 179.
Ramo 2016.
Manulak 2019.
Sebenius 1983.
Fletcher 2017: 17–18.
A similar approach is used in Long 2022.
DCER 1950, 1996a: 254.
Acheson 1987: 334–335.
FRUS 1951, 1983.
Acheson 1954.
Pearson 1993, 78.
FRUS 1951, 1983, 20.
Menon 1965: 218.
Chipman 1954: 9.
Pearson 1973: 293.
Pearson 1973: 295.
Nehru 1993: 468.
Jebb 1972: 242. Yet, as Pearson (1973: 290–293) records in his diaries, Jebb and Frank opposed Attlee’s prime ministerial initiative. In his memoirs, Jebb (1972: 244) notes diplomatically, “We for our part were, however, rather less conscious of the difficulties in the way of better relations between the Americans and the Chinese…” The disconnect between Attlee and the current thinking in Washington is, furthermore, suggested in Acheson’s (1954: 478–481) recollections of Attlee’s December 1949 visit to Washington.
DCER 1951, 1996b: 39.
DCER 1951, 1996b: 1033.
FRUS 1951, 1983: 57.
Reid 1986: 70–71.
Kitchen 1996: 251.
Robertson 1964: 188.
Pearson 1973: 247.
Pearson submitted and withdrew his name from the speaker’s list on several occasions before electing to wait until after the vote on the U.S.-led resolution had passed. Caroll 2009: 29.
France and Israel were also, of course, involved, but largely followed the UK’s lead.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001 : 251.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 218.
FRUS 1956–1957, 1990: 1123–1125.
Krasno 1990: 16, 18, 22.
Reid 1986: 83.
For an assessment, see: Carroll 2009: 28–29.
Stursberg 1980: 146–147.
Krasno 1990: 16 and 18.
Reid 1986: 83.
Reid 1989: 281.
Donaghy 2016: 317.
Holmes 1970: 2, 92.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 197–198.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 191.
Carroll 2009: 26.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 219–220.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 218.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 217–218.
Touhey 2015, 79.
DCER 1956–1957, 2001: 212–214.
Krasno 1990: 23.
Bowen 1984: 76.
Krasno 1990: 16.
For example, while expressing broad support for the UNEF proposal, the UK insisted that British and French forces should serve as a part of the UN force. Recognizing the difficulties that such a proposal would pose, Canada opposed participation of these forces. In orchestrating the UN General Assembly proposals surrounding the creation of UNEF, Canada was positioned to prevent British/French participation in the UN coalition it had helped to forge.
Holmes 1970: 25.
Waters 2003.
Holmes 1970: 100.
Waters 2003.
Kelly 2018.
Waters 2003: 220.
See, for example: Pouliot 2016: 238.
References
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why state act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.
Acheson, D. (1954). Tribute to hume wrong: Qualities of goodness and integrity said to be outstanding. New York Times, pp 26
Acheson, D. (1987). Present at creation: My years in the state department. W.W. Norton & Company.
Anderson, A. (2015). The diplomat: Lester Pearson and the Suez crisis. Fredericton: Goose Lane.
Avant, D., & Westerwinter, O. (2016). The new power politics: Networks and transnational security governance. Oxford University Press.
Beardsley, K. (2008). Agreement without Peace? International mediation and time inconsistency problems. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 723–740.
Beardsley, K. (2011). The Mediation Dilemma. Cornell University Press.
Bothwell, R. (2007). Alliance and illusion: Canada and the world, 1945–1984. UBC Press.
Bowen, R. W. (1984). EH Norman: His life and scholarship. University of Toronto Press.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
Caroll, M. K. (2009). Pearson’s peacekeepers: Canada and the united nations emergency force, 1956-1967. UBC Press.
Carpenter, R. C. (2011). Vetting the advocacy agenda: Network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms. International Organization, 65(1):69–102.
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope—social movements in the Internet Age. Wiley.
Chapnick, A. (2005). The middle power project: Canada and the founding of the united nations. UBC Press.
Chipman, W. (1954). India’s foreign policy. Canadian Institute of International Affairs.
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). (1996a). Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER), 1950, Vol. 16. Government of Canada.
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). (1996b). Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER), 1951, Vol. 17. Government of Canada.
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). (2001). Permanent Representative to United Nations to Secretary of State for External Affairs, 5 November 1956, Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER), 1956–1957, Vol. 22. Government of Canada.
Donaghy, G. (2016). The politics of accommodation: Canada, the Middle East, and the Suez crisis, 1950–1956. International Journal, 71(2), 313–327.
Duque, M. G. (2018). Recognizing international status: A relational approach. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 577–592.
Breen, L., Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2023). Issue-adoption and campaign structure in transnational advocacy campaigns: A longitudinal network analysis. European Journal of International Relations, 1–31. Online first: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13540661231158553. Accessed 16 Feb 2024
Falkner, R. (2021). Environmentalism and global international society. Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79.
Ferguson, N. (2017). The square and the tower: Networks and power, from freemasons to facebook. Penguin.
Fletcher, T. (2017). The naked diplomat: Understanding power and politics in the digital age. William Collins.
Freeman, L. C. (1978/1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Goddard, S. E. (2018). Embedded revisionism: Networks, institutions, and challenges to world order. International Organization, 72(3), 763–797.
Goldberg, A., Srivastava, S. B., GovindManian, V., Monroe, W., & Potts, C. (2016). Fitting in or standing out? The Tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. American Sociology Review, 81(6), 1190–1222.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Greenhill, B., & Lupu, Y. (2017). Fragmentation in the network of intergovernmental organizations. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 181–195.
Gurry, M. (1992–1993). Leadership in bilateral relations: Menzies and Nehru, Australia and India, 1949–1964. Pacific Affairs, 65(4), 510–526.
Hafner-Burton, E., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2006). Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27.
Hampson, F. O. with Hart, M. (1995).Multilateral negotiations: Lessons from arms control, trade, and the environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Henke, M. E. (2019). Buying allies: Payment practices in multilateral coalition-building. International Security, 43(4), 128–162.
Hillmer, N. (2020). Investing peacekeeping: Anthony Eden, Lester Pearson and two police actions at Suez, 1956, draft paper.
Holmes, J. W. (1970). The better part of valour: Essays on Canadian diplomacy. McLelland & Stewart.
Jebb, G. (1972). The memoirs of Lord Gladwyn. Weybright and Talley.
Jupille, J., Mattli, W., & Snidal, D. (2013). Institutional choice and global commerce. Cambridge University Press.
Kahler, M. (Ed.). (2009). Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Cornell University Press.
Kahler, M. (2017). Middle powers, network power, and soft power. In V. Cha & M. Dumond (Eds.), The Korean pivot: The study of South Korea as a global power (pp. 10–15). CSIS.
Kamau, M., Chasek, P., & O’Connor, D. (2018). Transforming multilateral diplomacy: The inside story of the sustainable development goals. Routledge.
Keating, T. (2013). Canada and world order: The multilateralist tradition in Canadian foreign policy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kelly, A. (2018). ANZUS and the early cold war: Strategy and diplomacy between Australia, New Zealand and the United States, 1945–1956. Open Book Publishers.
Kinne, B. J. (2014). Dependent diplomacy: Signalling, strategy, and prestige in the diplomatic network. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 247–259.
Kinne, B. J. (2018). Defence cooperation agreements and the emergence of a global security network. International Organization, 72(4), 799–837.
Kitchen, M. (1996). From the Korean war to Suez: Anglo-American-Canadian relations, 1950–1956. In B. J. C. McKercher & L. Aronsen (Eds.), The North Atlantic triangle in a changing world: Anglo-American-Canadian relations, 1902-1956. University of Toronto Press.
Krasno, J., Interview with Arthur Lall. (1990). Dag Hammarskjold library, United Nations oral history project. p. 22. Krasno, Interview with Arthur Lall. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/478471?ln=en. Accessed 20 Feb 2020
Lake, D. A., & Wong, W. H. (2009). The politics of networks: Interests, power, and human rights norms. In M. Kahler (Ed.), Networked politics: Agency, power, and governance. Cornell University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1963). The analysis of bloc voting in the general assembly: A critique and a proposal. American Political Science Review, 57(4), 902–917.
Lloyd, S. (1978). Suez 1956: A personal account. Cape.
Long, T. (2022). A small state’s guide to influence in world politics. Oxford University Press.
MacMillan, M. (2006). Nixon in China: The week that changed the world. Penguin.
Manulak, M. W. (2019). Why and how to succeed at network diplomacy. The Washington Quarterly, 42(1), 171–181.
Manulak, M. W. (2021). The networked diplomacy of informal international institutions: The case of the proliferation security initiative. Global Governance, 27(3), 410–432.
Manulak, M. W. (2020). A bird in the hand: Temporal focal points and change in international institutions. Review of International Organizations, 15(1), 1–27.
Manulak, M. W. (2022). Change in global environmental politics: Temporal focal points and the reform of international institutions. Cambridge University Press.
Maoz, Z. (2012). Preferential attachment, homophily, and the structure of international networks, 1816–2003. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3), 341–369.
Menon, K. P. S. (1965). Many words: An autobiography. Oxford University Press.
Menzies, R. (1967). Afternoon light. Penguin.
Mesquita, R. (2024). The only living guerrillero in New York: Cuba and the brokerage power of a resilient revisionist state. Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09532-9
Milewicz, K., Hollway, J., Peacock, C., & Snidal, D. (2016). Beyond trade: The expanding scope of the nontrade agenda in trade agreements. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(4), 743–773.
Morin, J.-F., & Paquin, J. (2018). Foreign policy analysis: A toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan.
Nehru, J. (1993). In: S. Gopal (Ed.), Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, volume 15, Part II. Oxford University Press.
Neumann, I. B. (2012). At home with the diplomats: Inside a European foreign ministry. Cornell University Press.
Pearson, L. B. (1973). The memoirs of the right honourable Lester B. Pearson, Vol. 2: 1948-1957. University of Toronto Press.
Pearson, G. A. H. (1993). Seize the day: Lester B. Pearson and Crisis Diplomacy. Carleton University Press, 1993.
Pouliot, V. (2011). Diplomats as permanent representatives: The practical logics of the multilateral pecking order. International Journal, 66(3), 543–561.
Pouliot, V. (2016). International pecking orders: The politics and practice of multilateral diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.
Prince, R. S. (1992–1993). The limits of constraint: Canadian-American relations and the Korean war, 1950–51. Journal of Canadian Studies, 27(4), 129–152.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
Raiffa, Howard. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press.
Ramo, J. C. (2016). The seventh sense: Power, fortune, and survival in the age of networks. Little, Brown and Company.
Reid, E. (1981). Envoy to Nehru. Oxford University Press.
Reid, E. (1986). Hungary and Suez 1956: A view from New Delhi. Mosaic Press.
Reid, E., & Mandarin, R. (1989). The memoirs of Escott Reid. University of Toronto Press.
Robertson, T. (1964). Crisis: The inside story of the Suez Conspiracy. McClelland and Stewart.
Roger, C., & Rowan, S. (2022). The new terrain of global governance: Mapping membership in informal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 67(6), 1248–1269.
Sebenius, J. K. (1983). Negotiation arithmetic: Adding and subtracting issues and parties. International Organization, 37(2), 281–316.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. Yale University Press.
Snidal, D., Hale, T., Jones, E., et al. (2024). The power of the “weak” and international organizations. Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09531-w
Stairs, D. (1974). The diplomacy of constraint. University of Toronto Press.
Stursberg, P. (1980). Lester Pearson and the American Dilemma. Doubleday.
Touhey, R. (2015). Canada and India in the cold war world, 1946–76. UBC Press.
United States Department of State. (1976). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Vol. VII, Korea. Government Printing Office.
United States Department of State. (1983). Foreign relations of the United States, 1951, Vol. VII, Korea and China (Part 1). Government Printing Office.
United States Department of State. (1990). Foreign relations of the United States, 1956–1957, Suez crisis. Government Printing Office.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Waters, C. (2003). Diplomacy in easy chairs: Casey, Pearson, and Australian-Canadian relations, 1951–7. In M. MacMillan & F. McKenzie (Eds.), Partners long estranged: Canada and Australia in the twentieth century (pp. 207–228). UBC Press.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jessica Becker, Elissa Golberg, Norman Hillmer, Miles Kahler, Margaret MacMillan, Claas Mertens, Rafael Mesquita, Daniel Nexon, Daniel Nielson, Kim Richard Nossal, Leigh Sarty, Kristopher Ramsay, Duncan Snidal, and three anonymous reviewers, for helpful feedback and comments. I am grateful to the editors of this Special Issue for their help in strengthening this article and for organizing the Issue. Previous versions of this paper were presented at conferences of the American Political Science Association, the Canadian Political Science Association, International Studies Association, and the Political Economy of International Organizations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest or competing interest to report.
Additional information
Responsible editors: Claas Mertens & Duncan Snidal
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Manulak, M.W. The sources of influence in multilateral diplomacy: Replaceability and intergovernmental networks in international organizations. Rev Int Organ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09536-5
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09536-5