Home or Away?

Abstract

Many bilateral negotiations of secondary importance are still conducted by embassies. This is also true of some of the first order, for example on the legal status of armed forces personnel and the future of military bases abroad, not least because these can take years to conclude. But, assuming that a bilateral relationship enjoys an embassy at each of its poles, is it best for a state to negotiate with the foreign embassy in its own capital or through its own embassy abroad, at home or away? Diplomatic historians have rarely shown much interest in this question, although the choice of venue is always taken seriously by foreign ministries because it can have a distinct bearing on the outcome of a negotiation. In sporting engagements, ‘home advantage’ is well established: the players are likely to gain both from their greater familiarity with the ground and the vocal encouragement of their more numerous supporters. In diplomacy, however, the picture is less clear. Some states appear to be as keen to conduct negotiations by means of their own embassies in overseas capitals as others are to pursue them via foreign embassies at home. The reason for this is that home and abroad both have their advantages and disadvantages. But, this being the case, how are decisions actually made as to which embassy should take the lead?