A Discussion of the Digitalization of Public Diplomacy

  • Ilan ManorEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy book series (GPD)


This chapter examines how the norms, values and the logic of the digital society have influenced the practice of public diplomacy. Through a review of case studies from Africa, Israel, Palestine, Poland, the USA and Eastern Europe, the chapter illustrates how digital technologies have impacted the working routines and structures of diplomatic institutions as well as the metaphors diplomats’ employ to conceptualize their craft. The chapter, then, reviews a series of factors that can impact the process of digitalization of diplomatic institutions, ranging from the affordance of digital technologies to the domestic agendas of governments and innovative foreign ministers. Lastly, the chapter discusses new avenues for public diplomacy research that further elucidate the relationship between digital technologies, the digital society and public diplomacy.


  1. Archetti, C. (2012). The impact of new media on diplomatic practice: An evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attias, S. (2012). Israel’s new peer-to-peer diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(4), 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2016). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernal, V. (2014). Nation as network: Diaspora, cyberspace, and citizenship. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjola, C. (2014). The ethics of secret diplomacy: A contextual approach. Journal of Global Ethics, 10(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 71–88). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2018). Revisiting Putnam’s two-level game theory in the digital age: Domestic digital diplomacy and the Iran nuclear deal. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31(1), 1–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Causey, C., & Howard, P. N. (2013). Delivering digital public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 144–156). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, A. (2015). Business as usual? An evolution of British and Canadian digital diplomacy as policy change. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 111–126). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette, 74(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copeland, D. (2013). Taking diplomacy public: Science, technology and foreign ministries in a heteropolar world. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 56–69). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Freedman, L. (2014). Ukraine and the art of crisis management. Survival, 56(3), 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilboa, E. (2005a). The CNN effect: The search for a communication theory of international relations. Political Communication, 22(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilboa, E. (2005b). Global television news and foreign policy: Debating the CNN effect. International Studies Perspectives, 6(3), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harnden, T. (2010, November). WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton states WikiLeaks release is “an attack”. The Telegraph. Retrieved from
  17. Hayden, C. (2012). Social media at state: Power, practice, and conceptual limits for US public diplomacy. Global Media Journal, 11(21), 1–21.Google Scholar
  18. Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  19. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). Digital diplomacy conference summary (pp. 6–19). Retrieved from
  20. Kampf, R., Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national comparison of public engagement in Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichtenstein, J. (2010, July). Digital diplomacy. The New York Times. Retrieved from–0-t.html.
  22. Lutyens, A. (2018). Investigating New Zealand’s model of democratized public diplomacy [In person].Google Scholar
  23. Manor, I. (2016). Are we there yet: Have MFA s realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018). The aesthetics of violent extremist and counter violent extremist communication. In C. Bjola & J. Pamment (Eds.), Countering online propaganda and extremism: The dark side of digital diplomacy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2019). The mediatization of MFAs: Diplomacy in the new media ecology. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.Google Scholar
  26. Manor, I. & Kampf, R. (2019). Digital nativity and digital engagement: Implications for the practice of dialogic digital diplomacy.Google Scholar
  27. Manor, I., & Soone, L. (2018, January). The digital industries: Transparency as mass deception. Global Policy. Retrieved from
  28. Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 3–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Melissen, J., & de Keulenaar, E. V. (2017). Critical digital diplomacy as a global challenge: The South Korean experience. Global Policy, 8(3), 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Metzgar, E. T. (2012). Is it the medium or the message? Social media, American public diplomacy & Iran. Global Media Journal, 12(21), 1.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, D., & Horst, H. A. (2017). The digital and the human: A prospectus for digital anthropology. In H. A. Horst & D. Miller (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 3–38). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Mor, B. D. (2012). Credibility talk in public diplomacy. Review of International Studies, 38(2), 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Natarajan, K. (2014). Digital public diplomacy and a strategic narrative for India. Strategic Analysis, 38(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pamment, J. (2014). The mediatization of diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 9(3), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pamment, J., Nothhaft, H., Agardh-Twetman, H., & Fjallhed, A. (2018). Countering information influence activities: The state of the art. Lund University.Google Scholar
  36. Paulauskas, R. (2018). Understanding Lithuania’s digital diplomacy model [In person].Google Scholar
  37. Quelch, J. A., & Jocz, K. E. (2009). Can brand Obama rescue brand America? The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(1), 163–178.Google Scholar
  38. Robinson, P. (1999). The CNN effect: Can the news media drive foreign policy? Review of International Studies, 25(2), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheridan, M. B. (2010, November). Hillary Clinton: WikiLeaks release an ‘attack on international community’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
  41. Sontag, S. (1990). On photography. London, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  42. Stein, J. G. (2011). Diplomacy in the digital age. In J. G. Stein (Ed.), Diplomacy in the digital age: Essays in honour of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb (pp. 1–9). Ontario: Signal.Google Scholar
  43. Storr, W. (2018). Book six: The digital self. In W. Storr (Ed.), Selfie: How the West became self-obsessed (pp. 243–303). London: Picador.Google Scholar
  44. Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., …, Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Hewlett Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. (2017). Can public diplomacy survive the internet? Bots, echo chambers, and disinformation (pp. 2–91). Retrieved from
  46. Van Ham, P. (2013). Social power in public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 17–28). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  47. Wichowski, A. (2015). ‘Secrecy is for losers’: Why diplomats should embrace openness to protect national security. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 52–70). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations