Read more
"This book combines organization theory oriented institutionalism with Eisenstadt's work on comparative liminality, to develop a unique analytical framework and explore the dynamic of stability and change in institutionalized orders. It then applies thisframework to analyze ways how three fringe players of the modern diplomatic order - the Holy See (HS), the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), and the European Union (EU) - have been accommodated within that order. Batora and Hynek reveal that themodern diplomatic order is less state-centric than conventionally assumed and is instead better conceived of as a heteronomy - an order characterized by co-existence of units with different age, and structurally and ontologically different principles of growth and operation. They argue that this heteronomous character of the modern diplomatic order renders it more robust and far less susceptible to change than much of the proliferating literature on the changing nature of diplomacy has presented it"--
List of contents
Introduction 1. Social Scientific Conceptualizations of Diplomacy 2. Diplomacy as an Institution Embedded in Environments, Structures and Practices 3. Studying Liminality and Fringe Players in the Modern Diplomatic Order 4. The Holy See: Global Borderless Sovereignty and Double-Hatted Diplomats 5. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta: Extraordinary Resilience Meets the Chance 6. The European Union: Bending the Rules to Fit In 7. Conclusion - Liminality, Co-Existing Diplomatic Orders and the 'New' Diplomatic Heteronomy
Report
"This study of the nature and dynamics of the modern diplomatic order makes several surprising and interesting moves. Analytically by combining such strange bed-fellows as organization theory, oriented institutionalism and Eisenstadt's research program on comparative liminality, and empirically by focusing on three fringe players, a newcomer (the European Union) and two old enities (the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta). The result [provides] new insights into diplomacy as an institutionalized, composite order, the interdependence between continuity and change, as well as the role of institutions in political life." - Johan P. Olsen, University of Oslo, Norway
"This bringing of neo-institutional theory to diplomacy is long overdue, and is the more commendable for relying on case-studies of how hegemonic set-ups are contested. Yet another step in the rapid professionalisation of diplomacy studies." - Iver B. Neumann, London School of Economics, UK
