Search results

AbstractThe need to maintain embassies as essential outposts of diplomatic recognition and representation has been questioned by many observers. Critics deem them increasingly irrelevant in a globalized context of multiple, more adaptable actors, whereas their advocates hold on to the ongoing role of the nation-state in structures of global governance. Both sides agree that change is necessary, although they disagree on its goals and how far it should go. This Introduction sets out the main arguments present in the debate, laying the foundation for the articles that follow which explore how embassies, diplomats and diplomatic representation have all been adapted and transformed by the changing political context of the global era.

AbstractThis article investigates the relevance of consular positions, and particularly the honorary consul, through their representations in modern literature and the arts. Although the honorary consul's official status is codified in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, this document clearly identifies the limits to diplomatic immunity for this position, such that the honorary consul occupies a hybrid space on the boundary between the public and the private. This hybridity opens up the possibility for ambiguity in terms of conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. Acknowledging this hybridity requires re-examining the position of honorary consul beyond formal descriptions in mainstream diplomatic studies which are often evasive on the position's actual status. In contrast, their representation in modern literature and the arts offers a more candid insight into the ontology and practice of consuls and consular work. As a result, the article makes the claim that the honorary consul illustrates that the public/private divide in contemporary diplomacy is less stable than is generally presented, and that the rise of private entities as diplomatic actors is therefore more a question of intensity than the emergence of something entirely new.

The Free Europe Committee (FEC, known from 1949 to 1952 as the National Committee for a Free Europe) was created in June 1949 in line with George Kennan's push for a greater mobilization of the private sector in U.S. political warfare against the Soviet Union. An oft-mentioned but little-explored part of the FEC conglomerate was the Free Europe University in Exile (FEUE), established in Strasbourg in 1951. This article focuses on four Americans who played lesser-known but, in their individual ways, central roles in the formation and running of the FEUE: James Burnham (the consultant), DeWitt Poole (the diplomat), Royall Tyler (the point man), and Adolf Berle (the intellectual). By tracking their input, the impulses that led to FEUE's formation, and its eventual demise, the article presents the university as a microcosm not just of the large-scale FEC operation but also of various strands that fed into U.S. political warfare as a whole.

The Free Europe Committee (FEC, known from 1949 to 1952 as the National Committee for a Free Europe) was created in June 1949 in line with George Kennan's push for a greater mobilization of the private sector in U.S. political warfare against the Soviet Union. An oft-mentioned but little-explored part of the FEC conglomerate was the Free Europe University in Exile (FEUE), established in Strasbourg in 1951. This article focuses on four Americans who played lesser-known but, in their individual ways, central roles in the formation and running of the FEUE: James Burnham (the consultant), DeWitt Poole (the diplomat), Royall Tyler (the point man), and Adolf Berle (the intellectual). By tracking their input, the impulses that led to FEUE's formation, and its eventual demise, the article presents the university as a microcosm not just of the large-scale FEC operation but also of various strands that fed into U.S. political warfare as a whole. Adapted from the source document.