International Negotiations in the Digital Age

封面

如何引用文章

详细

The digital revolution has a significant impact on world politics, including the practice of international negotiations and diplomacy, which, being extremely conservative areas of human activity, still have to adapt to the new digital reality conditions. The practice of digital diplomacy, which involves using social networks to interact with a wide international audience, is becoming widespread. New diplomacy formats are emerging that focused on working with big data, machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies. This study explores the impact of the digital revolution on the practice of international negotiations. Methodologically, the analysis is based on the structural-functional approach, according to which international negotiations act as a structural element of diplomacy and foreign policy. At the same time, the authors single out the invariants of negotiations, which include the stages of international negotiations - preparation phase, discussions and implementation of the results of negotiations. The digital revolution is changing the nature of international negotiations, creating new opportunities for negotiation tactics, as well as new challenges, primarily related to information security and confidentiality. In addition, the development of digital technologies produces new subject areas of international negotiations that focus on Internet regulation, information security and other digital society problems, and contributes to the emergence and development of new international negotiations formats - multistakeholder negotiations and online remote negotiations. The authors conclude that the main negotiation invariants remain the same. However, digital technologies are transforming the available negotiating tools and tactics. Under these conditions, new knowledge and competencies are in demand among diplomats, in particular, in the field of data management and information security.

作者简介

Marina Lebedeva

MGIMO University

Email: mmlebedeva@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4162-0807

PhD (Psychology), Dr. of Sc. (Political Science), Professor, Head, Department of World Politics

Moscow, Russian Federation

Elena Zinovieva

MGIMO University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: elena.zinovjeva@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5129-338X

PhD, Dr. of Sc. (Political Science), Professor, Deputy Director, Centre for International Information Security, Science and Technology Policy

Moscow, Russian Federation

参考

  1. Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 129-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175
  2. Attatfa, A., Renaud, K., & De Paoli, S. (2020). Cyber diplomacy: A systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 176, 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.08.007
  3. Bjola, C. (2015). Introduction: Making sense of digital diplomacy. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy. Theory and practice (pp. 15-24). London: Routledge.
  4. Bjola, C. (2016). Digital diplomacy - the state of the art. Global Affairs, 2(3), 297-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2016.1239372
  5. Djamalov, F. O. (2021). Challenges of the digital age for conducting diplomacy in the period of globalization and the coronavirus pandemic. Aktual’nye Issledovanija, (10), 83-86. (In Russian). Retrieved from https://apni.ru/article/2020-vizovi-tsifrovoj-epokhi-na-vedenie-diplomatii
  6. Galperin, P. Y. (1976). Introduction into psychology. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta publ. (In Russian).
  7. Held, D. (1989). Political theory and the modern state. Essays on state, power, and democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  8. Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael Report, 1-58. Retrieved from https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2016-02/Digital_Diplomacy_in_the_Digital%20Age_Clingendael_July2015.pdf
  9. Hughes, S. C., Wickersham, L., Ryan-Jones, D. L., & Smith, S. A. (2002). Overcoming social and psychological barriers to effective on-line collaboration. Educational Technology and Society, 5(1), 86-92.
  10. Karyagin, V. V. (1994). Diplomatic life beyond the curtains and on the stage. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija publ. (In Russian).
  11. Kaufmann, J. (1996). Conference diplomacy: An introductory analysis. London: Macmillan Press.
  12. Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (2003). Institutional theory as a research program. In C. Elman & M. F. Elman (Eds.), Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field (pp. 71-108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5627.003.0006
  13. Kovalev, A. G. (1988). Manual on diplomacy. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija publ. (In Russian).
  14. Kremenyuk, V. A. (1991). The emerging system of international negotiation. In V. A. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues (pp. 22-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  15. Kuzminykh, A., & Rintel, S. (2020). Classification of functional attention in video meetings. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376546
  16. Lebedeva, M. M. (1993). You are to negotiate. Moscow: Ekonomika publ. (In Russian).
  17. Lebedeva, M. M. (2016). International negotiations technologies. Moscow: Aspekt Press publ. (In Russian).
  18. Lukov, V. B., & Sergeev, V. M. (1981). Methodological and methodical foundations of the SSCE information and logic system. In I. G. Tyulin & M. A. Khrustalev (Eds.), Modelling issues in multilateral diplomatic negotiations (pp. 48-70). Moscow: MGIMO publ. (In Russian).
  19. Manor, I. (2019). The digitalization of public diplomacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04405-3
  20. Manor, I. (2016). Are we there yet: Have MFAs realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Results from a cross-national comparison. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
  21. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027697
  22. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Moscow: Eksmo publ. (In Russian).
  23. Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. (2010). Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411-431. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710001179
  24. Tsvetkova, N. A. (2020). The digital diplomacy as a phenomenon of international relations: Research methodology. RGGU Bulletin. Series: Political Science. History. International Relations, (2), 37-47. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2020-2-37-47
  25. Tsvetkova, N. A. (2011). US WEB public diplomacy. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, (3), 109-122. (In Russian).
  26. Tsvetkova, N. A., & Fedorova, I. V. (2021). U.S. data diplomacy: Imperative, apparatus, and scope. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 51(1), 104-116. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/ S268667300013205-5
  27. Tsvetkova, N. A., & Kuznetsov, N. M. (2020). Phenomenon of big data diplomacy in world politics. RGGU Bulletin. Series: Political Science. History. International Relations, (4), 27-44. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2020-4-27-44
  28. Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. R. (1982). The practical negotiator. New Haven: Yale University Press.

版权所有 © Lebedeva M.M., Zinovieva E.S., 2023

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##