The Beginning Of Institutional Diplomatic Practices

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:14:14.425+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:09:52.999Z

THE BEGINNING OF INSTITUTIONAL DIPLOMATIC

PRACTICES Midhuna Madhavan C. S. , National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi, Kerala Diplomacy is the way countries communicate and interact with each other. Diplomacy constantly evolves yet retains its fundamental nature but also changes over time. While traditional diplomacy, rooted in the past, remains vital, our generation witnesses dynamic changes due to revolutionary technology. These changes impact every nation, connecting them in a complex web of relationships. The origin and long history of diplomacy begins with the Mesopotamian civilization and ends with the beginning of the Middle Ages. Diplomacy has undergone significant changes since the medieval age. "Medieval diplomacy" was practised in Europe between the 5th and the 15th centuries when it was a monarchy.

A variety of diplomatic techniques, such as the exchanging of envoys, the negotiation of treaties, and the employment of marriage connections, were used in medieval diplomacy. It evolved over time, spreading from Mesopotamia to Greece and Rome and eventually forming the basis of the modern Westphalian system. The practice of diplomacy was seen as a system of interaction that kept the peace, well-being and order of the state. It began with the emergence of writing, which gave birth to diplomatic practices in Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Assyria, China, India and beyond. ANCIENT DIPLOMACY Diplomacy began as a practice between kings, ambassadors, or other envoys from other kingdoms or empires in an effort to forge alliances, resolve conflicts, or establish trade agreements.

According to Hamilton and Langhorne, Diplomacy is ‘the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political entities, their principals and accredited agents. ’1 The establishment of diplomatic missions or embassies in other countries, along with the exchange of gifts, took 1 Wiseman, G. , & Sharp, P. (2017). Diplomacy. In An Introduction to International Relations, Third edition (pp. 296-308). Cambridge University Press March 7/24. shape in order to build peace. This first exchange system of the ancient polities shares striking similarities with modern diplomacy. Although Greece is accepted as the birthplace of Western civilisation, diplomacy was not born in Greece, which is contrary to what is widely thought. Diplomacy was born thousands of years before ancient Greece committed to diplomacy as a civilisation.

The origin and long history of diplomacy begins with the Mesopotamian civilisation and ends with the beginning of the Middle Ages. The first system of city-states occurred in Mesopotamia between the 4th and the first millennium. The system was mainly based on that of the Sumerians in the south, Babylonian and Akkadian in the centre and Assyrians in the north. Sumerians were the earliest practitioners of diplomacy. Diplomacy was used by Sumerians with a motivation to end conflicts through the conventional method of sending messengers with messages written on clay tablets in cuneiform. Sumerian was used as the lingua franca of diplomacy until the Akkadian hegemony was established in the region.

2 The first known diplomatic letter was a message sent by the King of Ebla (in northern Syria) to the kingdom of Hamazi (north of Iran today), which shows a similar style of language and content of modern diplomacy. This letter provides clear evidence of the existence of a wellperforming mechanism in which both sides knew the rules. After the conquest of Sumer by the Akkadians, the Akkadian language was used for diplomacy as it was better suited to the new political circumstances. The Akkadian King Salmon is accepted as the founder of the military tradition in Mesopotamia. The treaty between Egypt and the Hittites which is a diplomatic letter from around 1300 BC, was written in Akkadian. The Akkadian term ‘mar shipri’, which first appeared in texts at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, may designate a ‘messenger’, ‘envoy’, ‘agent’, ‘deputy’, ‘ambassador’, or ‘diplomat’.

3 Babylon, established around 1894 BCE, was another polity which had used diplomacy intensively and effectively in the ancient Near East. Diplomacy as a practice intensified under the rule of Babylon’s sixth and most known King Hammurabi. 4 During this period, a highly efficient system of messengers was developed. Envoys were appointed for specific missions with a specific set of instructions; and the type of the diplomatic envoys varied according to 2 Jovan Kurbalija, Ancient Diplomacy: What can it teach us? , 'Diplomacy and Technology: A historical journey', 202, DiploFoundation, March

3 ibid

4 Asst.Prof. Dr. Fulya Ereker, ‘The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy

First Practices’, Page 38 the circumstances. They can be simple messengers who carry royal mail, but they can also be plenipotentiary ministers. Envoys were appointed for specific missions with a specific set of instructions; the type of diplomatic envoys varied according to the circumstances. 5 The Amarna letters, dating back to the 15th to 13th century BCE, were directly concerned with diplomacy. These letters were first found in Egypt (El-Amarna), Syria (Ugarit), Babylonia and Hittite Anatolia first in 1887. These letters, written on clay tablets and exchanged between Egyptian pharaohs and their Babylonian, Assyrian and Anatolian counterparts, give valuable information about diplomatic relations of this period.

The Amarna letters contained information about Strategic-military cooperation, Treaty negotiations, Dynastic marriages, Trade regulations, strengthening friendly relations, and Negotiating alliances. Letters were written in a specific pattern; first, they identified who was writing and to whom the letter was written, then reported their wishes to the other. The rest of the letter contained generally a request or the list of the items being sent. A few centuries after Amarna diplomacy, another diplomatic system emerged between Hittite and Egypt. 6 Hittite diplomacy was also a well-developed system, embracing all preceding diplomatic tools and rules of conduct. The nuance of the Hittite system was its different formulization based mainly on treaties. These treaties were concluded either between kings or the Hittite King and his vassals.

They were written in a structured pattern, and they included information about the Hittite King, conditions that brought the parties into forming an alliance, reciprocal obligations, a list of witnesses, and the rules to be applied in case of disloyalty. Hittite diplomacy is best known for the first peace treaty signed in 1270 BCE between Egyptian King Ramses II and Hittite King Hattusili III after the battle of Kadesh in Syria. 7 The Kadesh treaty was signed to end the long war between the Hittites and the Egyptians, which lasted for nearly two centuries for the domination over the Syrian region. As the Egyptian and Hittite Empires weakened, the Assyrian state emerged and reached its zenith during the 8th and7th centuries BCE. In order to manage their relations with the powers they were surrounded by, the Assyrians were dependent on diplomacy since their early stages.

The Assyrian diplomatic correspondence showed that the main focus of their diplomatic relations involved

5 Ibid, Page 38

6 ibid, Page 39

7 DiploFoundation, Amarna Diplomacy March 08/24

military affairs. 8 Assyrians used both war and diplomacy to achieve their goals. Assyrians made full use of all kinds of sources and adopted a variety of channels to collect intelligence. They used these channels both overtly through official envoys and covertly though spies. 9 Therefore, diplomacy, as we know it today, has its origin in the ancient civilizations in the Near East. It evolved over time, spreading from Mesopotamia to Greece and Rome and eventually forming the basis of the modern Westphalian system. The practice of diplomacy was seen as a system of interaction that kept the peace, well-being and order of the state. It began with the emergence of writing, which gave birth to diplomatic practices in Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Assyria, China, India and beyond.

DIPLOMACY IN ANCIENT CHINA Ancient China has a rich history of diplomacy, characterized by intricate rituals, strategic alliances, and complex political activities. Diplomacy played a crucial role in shaping China’s relationships with neighbouring states. Ancient China had another civilization where we could look for the origins of diplomacy as a system. Ancient Chinese Diplomacy covers 4,000 years of Ancient China's political development before modern times (from 1912 till date). In Ancient China, China was not always a unified entity. It was divided into different Chinese states, each competing with each other for hegemony. Diplomacy was based on bilateral relations and missions related to fleeting alliances, including maneuvers, secrecy and bribery Chinese states had no permanent friends and enemies; therefore, their strategies were ruthless but still in an equilibrium.

It is not surprising that Sun-Tzu, one of the best-known military strategists, and his thoughts were influential during this period. Sun Tzu lived during this period known as the Warring States Era, which was a time of conflict. His famous book “The Art of War” was inspired by the violence of that time. More than its title, the book is not just about war tactics; it mainly focuses on the strategies to avoid war altogether. Sun Tzu's aim was not to win battles but to overcome opponents without fighting. His first advice was to attack the enemy’s strategy before attacking the enemy itself. Enemy’s strategy before attacking the enemy itself. He then mentions indirect methods for manipulating the enemy’s actions in order to keep away the 8 Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Beal, Richard H, Journal of the American Oriental Society; Jul-Sep 2001; 121, 3; Research Library, pg. 496 March 08/24.

9 Jesper Eidem, Flemming Hojlund World Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 3, Ancient Trade

New Perspectives (Feb,1993), pp. 441-448 (8 pages) March 10. danger of being attacked. Another strategy Sun-Tzu suggests is to be flexible in regard to changing circumstances. 10 During the period of the Warring States Era, there was a great social and military upheaval in ancient China as the Zhou Dynasty fractured into warring kingdoms squabbling over territory and power. Improved farming techniques increased food production and population sizes, which allowed for larger and more destructive armies and the introduction of professional soldiers. New military strategies, tactics, and technologies also arose with a new emphasis on seizing control of enemy populations and territories. 11 The tradition of equal diplomacy ended with the Qin dynasty’s unification of China in 221 BCE. Before that, China used to treat other countries as equals in diplomacy.

With the new coercive universal empire, China’s diplomatic dealing with the foreign world lessened to the level of defence and trade issues. The diplomatic dealings with countries situated distant from China were mostly based on trade. Overall, the ancient Chinese diplomacy involved negotiations, alliances, trade, and cultural exchange, but it changed significantly with the rise of centralised imperial rule. 12 Despite shifts in political dynamics and the rise and fall of dynasties, the legacy of ancient Chinese diplomacy continues to influence the country's history and its connections with the world. This enduring legacy has left a lasting impression, shaping how China interacts with other nations for many years to come. DIPLOMACY IN ANCIENT INDIA Ancient India also has a rich and multifaceted tradition of statecraft and governance.

The diplomatic practices of India were commendable as they were systematic and quite different from the coexistent systems in other parts of the world. India had little political connection to the outside world until Alexander the Great conquered its northern regions in 326 BCE. The concept of righteousness in India encompassed both individual ethics and diplomatic conduct. The monarch saw diplomacy not just as a tool for power but as something rooted in ethics. It wasn’t mere manipulation for the States’ benefit but doing what was right. 13 The establishment

10 Leon Whyte, The Debate Sun Tzu and the Art of Soft Power? Blog, The Diplomat, https://thediplomat.com/2015/03/sun-tzu-and-the-art-of-soft-power> March 10.

11 Andria Pressel, Ancient History Sun Tzu

The Man Who Defined Chinese Warfare, The Collector, March 13.

12 Asst.Prof. Dr. Fulya Ereker, ‘The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy

First Practices’, Page 42

13 Ibid, Page, 44

of the Mauryan Empire, which dominated ancient India until 187 BCE, had changed the course of diplomacy in India. The Mauryan Empire was particularly active in diplomacy in order to extend its influence both in politics and in religious situations. This active diplomacy practice continued for centuries until the Rajput Kingdoms gained control and dominated the region by the 8th century. After this time, India began to be isolated from the rest of the world. The general pattern of diplomacy in ancient India can best be inferred from the work of the famous ancient philosopher and statesman Kautilya. While Kautilya’s book Arthshastra is a systematic account of the significance, types and patterns of diplomacy on one hand, it is a great treatise of realism on the other.

Kautilya is widely accepted as the first great political realist in history; and in conjunction with his approach to international relations, his account on diplomacy represents the same political realist tone. Before Kautilya, the idea of the Dharma Chakra was widely followed. He introduced the concept of Chakravarthi, which aimed for a unified empire to fulfil the Buddha's dream of universal righteousness. Kautilya emphasised Dharma Vijaya's righteous victory over Lobha Vijaya and Asur Vijaya, which were considered unrighteous wars. This perspective was a significant contribution to international law. The Gita starts with the word "Dharmakshetra," highlighting the importance of righteousness, and the Mahabharata also didn't glorify physical warfare. 14 Ancient Indian diplomacy prioritised avoiding war whenever possible, resorting to it only as a last resort.

The main objectives, then as now, included ensuring national security, interests, integrity, and sovereignty. Ethical means were emphasized, with the concept of Chatur Upaya, or four-fold alternatives of diplomacy, being notable. These alternatives included Sama (peaceful negotiation), Dana (compromise), Danda (punishment), and Bheda (division). 15 Sama stands for amity, polite ways, reason, peace, negotiation, persuasion and conciliation. Dana literally stands for 'gift'. Diplomacy means compromise and a reciprocal spirit of give and take to ensure interstate harmony and amity. However, the best policy would be only to pay a reasonable price in the bargain to avoid any imbalances. Bheda was to be resorted to when Sama and Dana failed. It meant, splitting, dividing, breach, rupture, disturbance, sowing 14 D. B.

Mathur, ‘ Some Reflections on Ancient Indian Diplomacy’ The Indian Journal of Political Science, January—December 1962, Vol. 23, No. 1/4 (January—December 1962), pp. 398-405 March 16

15 Ibid

dissension in an enemy camp, treason, treachery. This technique was in perfect order to puncture a state from within, sucking and sapping its vitality. All steps leading to diplomatic acrimony are part of Bheda. Danda is chastisement, punishment, attack, assault, violence and also a cudgel, stick, staff, an enemy; control, subjection and restraint: precisely, use of force resulting, sometimes, in war. Normally, it is unthinkable that Danda should be used without due care. Even as a desperate resort, Danda was a prescription in an emergency. Zimmer defined Danda as "aggression of whatever kind, whether outright and shameless or hypocritically justified as punishment for insult or a threatening attitude". 16 However, Kautilya warned against the application of such nakedly unscrupulous means, which only tend to recoil like a political boomerang.

War is also described as the final act of diplomacy. It may as well be dubbed the failure of diplomacy, for war seeks to gain abnormally, which is what diplomacy fails to secure normally. Manusmriti says: 17 “! िन$या िनजयाय(मा*+यत यु. यमाि◌यााः । पराजय4 सं7ामे त(मा9ंध िनि◌जजयेत् ।।“ Which means that none knows the outcome of the war. It is, therefore, wise to avoid such a catastrophe. Manusmriti also specifies why Danda should be the last weapon in the diplomatic arsenal. Though Kautilya prescribed a course of science of Government (Dandaniti), by tradition, war was actually disfavoured. "As the Hindu science of warfare valued both ethics and valour, waging of war without regard to moral and traditionally accepted standards, was a degradation of the spirit of humanity, and of the institution of war into mere animal brutality".

18 Ancient Indian diplomacy relied on skilled ambassadors and effective espionage. Kautilya stressed the importance of envoy missions, their roles, and discipline. Envoys were esteemed and accountable, enhancing Indian diplomatic practice. Theoretical and practical diplomacy elements were cultivated from diverse politico-ethical and religious texts, enriching Indian diplomatic heritage. Diplomacy and Dandaniti were thoughtfully and thoroughly nursed in India. Indian Diplomacy may not claim to be singularly different, but it certainly possesses

16 Ibid

17 K. M. Panikkar

The Principles and Practice of Diplomacy, (Bombay, 1956), Page. 145

18 Mathur (id)

such characteristics as deserve serious j academic consideration and also a niche of honour and authenticity, as a matter of rights. 19 Kautilya played an important role in the fall of the Magadha kingdom and the rise to power of the Mauryan dynasty. According to Kautilya, war is what defines inter-state relations. Kautilya defined six forms of foreign policy: • Peace: entering into a treaty; when the state is weaker than the enemy, it should make peace. • War: attacking and doing injury; when the state is stronger than the enemy, it should make war. • Non-alignment: staying quiet; when the state is equal with the enemy, and neither is capable of harming the other, the state should stay quiet. • Seeking shelter: When threatened by a stronger enemy, the state should seek protection from another stronger state, somewhat forming an alliance.

• Shows of force: When the state is increasing in capabilities, it should augment and mobilize resources to prepare for war. • Double-dealing: When a state seeks help to attack another state, it resorts to peace and war with different states at the same time. 20 From Kautilya’s work, along with other valuable sources, we can derive that in Ancient India, diplomatic dealings were well-developed and structured, particularly in regard to diplomats and the roles they played in diplomacy. There were detailed rules of diplomatic immunities and privileges of the inauguration and termination of diplomatic missions, as well as of the selection and duties of a diplomat. Ancient Indian diplomacy deserves serious attention and recognition around the world. As we navigate the complexities of contemporary diplomacy, the lessons learned from the past guide

19 Ibid

20 Boesche, Roger (2003). “Kautilya’s Arthasastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India”, The Journal of Military History, 67:11, 9-37. us to better and more ethical diplomatic approaches in the future. 21 DIPLOMACY IN ANCIENT GREECE The principles and methods of Greek diplomacy had been developed by the 5th century. In ancient Greece, diplomatic practices weren’t structured as they are today. Before the 5th century, Greeks had used embassies as a means of foreign affairs. Ancient Greece cannot be considered as the golden era of diplomacy. In the city-state system, no single city-state was powerful enough to establish hegemony, and they had to treat each other as equals, leading to basic diplomacy. Although not very organized, there was a pattern.

This structure caused diplomatic traffic, although this traffic did not lead to the emergence of a fixed system and an administrative structure. Treaties established both alliances and friendships. Friendships just meant not harming each other, while alliances required helping each other in war. 22 The main source for ancient Greek diplomacy has been the writings of Thucydides. It is widely accepted that the first account of diplomacy at this period was a diplomatic conference held in

432 BCE. During this period, a meeting was organized by Sparta and its allies to talk about

punishing Athens for breaking treaties. This meeting is often seen as the first example of diplomacy in that time. While this conference was convened by Sparta for its allies of the Peloponnesian League against Athens, it is known that an Athenian delegation was also allowed to participate at and even to be involved in debates. In fact, the Athenian delegation was there for another specific mission but still was allowed to attend; and this is a sign that by 5th century BCE Greeks were aware of some diplomatic right. 23 Another peculiarity of the ancient Greek diplomacy was that they preferred oral messages to written notes; therefore, there is not a large archive of diplomatic correspondence of ancient Greece.

There were three kinds of representatives: • Angelos: a messenger used for brief and specific missions • Keryx: a herald • Proxenos: a resident consul but the proxenos were citizens of the city in which they

21 Mathur (id)

22Adcock, F. E. (1948). “The Development Of Ancient Greek Diplomacy”, Perseé, 17:1, 1-12.

23 ibid

resided, not of the city-state that employed them. If a resident representative was needed in another state, then a resident was given the title of proxenos by the state which he represented. In other words, the proxenos looked after the interests of a foreign state while residing in the state of which he was a citizen. 24 Envoys were selected from among the prominent members of the state by the city assembly, and they were not necessarily qualified persons. They were chosen based on their political views and connections to the state they were negotiating with. These representatives needed to be good speakers. A mission could have three to ten members who were given simple instructions like confirming treaties by speaking an oath, discussing peace terms, or settling disputes for the benefit of their community.

One of the distinctive features of Greek diplomacy was its open and public nature. Decisions were made, and treaties were approved by public debate. This open nature of diplomacy deferred the development of an administrative structure and record-keeping. In the meantime, since decisions were taken on public debate, so diplomats had to follow strict instructions and had little flexibility. They weren't negotiators but rather persuasive speakers for their state's policies. Another fact that was limiting the effectiveness of the representative was the wide suspicion that envoys were vulnerable to bribery. Being open to such accusations was really limiting for them. To prevent bribery, giving gifts to diplomats was prohibited, unlike in the diplomacy of the ancient Near East. 25

CONCLUSION

Ancient diplomacy had its origin in Mesopotamia and evolved over thousands of years, shaping the interactions between states in the Near East, Greece, India, and beyond. While Mesopotamia laid the groundwork for diplomatic practices, ancient Greece contributed its own unique characteristics, such as open decision-making and reliance on speaking skills. The ancient civilizations of China, India, and Greece each contributed unique insights and practices to the development of diplomacy. In ancient China, diplomacy evolved through intricate rituals and strategic alliances influenced by figures like Sun Tzu. Ancient Indian diplomacy, which emphasises peace over war, with Kautilya's "Arthashastra" that served as a foundational text.

Meanwhile, ancient Greek diplomacy, though less structured, demonstrated early patterns of diplomatic behavior, including oral communication and public decision-making.

24 Asst.Prof. Dr. Fulya Ereker, ‘The Historical Evolution of Diplomacy

First Practices’, Page. 47

25 ibid

Despite their differences, these ancient diplomatic traditions share common themes of negotiation, alliance-building, and conflict avoidance. They laid the groundwork for modern diplomatic practices, influencing how nations interact and cooperate on the global stage.