How does diplomacy work among nations

As Kim B. The role of diplomacy in the 21 st century is less clearly defined than in the past. Its influence on the organization of the international order is decreasing.

An answer will eventually be determined by whether the governmental activity of democracies can gain or re-establish the indispensable trust of citizens in the representative institutions of foreign policy. Equipped with only an impressionistic body of practical knowledge about the use of economic force, diplomats from the United States and the member states of the European Union EU are struggling to keep up with an increasing reliance on ever more sophisticated economic sanctions in the pursuit of national security and foreign policy objectives.

Until now, there exists not a single official American or European doctrine that could provide guidance for the use of economic force. This intellectual imbalance can hardly be justified given that military and economic power occupy opposite sides of the same coin.

Markets have become one of the main battlefields at the beginning of the 21 st century. This shift away from the use of armed to economic force was mainly driven by three technological and societal developments: firstly, the development of nuclear weapons led to a rapid decline of the utility of armed force, since its actual use among major powers would have assured their mutual destruction.

Later on, armed force also turned out to be a rather blunt and therefore ineffective instrument to cope with unconventional threats posed by limited or collapsing statehood, transnational violent extremism, and organized crime. This is not to say that armed forced completely ceased to be used, as the continuation of covert operations and other types of limited use of armed force such as drones or cyber warfare amply demonstrates to this day.

Finally, the use of economic sanctions was further elevated by the emergence of post-heroic societies across Western countries where the associated post-material values would henceforth provoke almost allergic reactions to casualties on the battlefield. This shift in statecraft has been most pronounced in the United States; here the Department of the Treasury now occupies a central role in foreign policy and national security policy-making, overseeing a vast regime of unilateral economic sanctions employed against state and non-state actors around the world.

Within the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Foreign Assets Control OFAC is the lead agency that implements and enforces financial and trade sanctions under national emergency powers granted by Congress to the president pursuant to two key statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of Every U.

Roosevelt has utilized these economic sanctions to conduct U. Under the George W. The increasing reliance on trade and financial sanctions elevated senior officials from the Department of the Treasury to pursue diplomatic missions to garner support for, and offer warnings about, non-compliance with unilateral U. Whereas the threat of being side-lined by other bureaucratic and non-state actors in the conduct of diplomacy had been feared by diplomats in the past, the current marginalization of the Department of State is truly unprecedented.

The soaring use of economic sanctions by U. This expertise mostly resided in finance or trade ministries, central banks, and the private sector.

In the United States, the demand for this specialized economic knowledge has been supplied and operationalized by a new bureaucratic cast whose members are neither diplomats nor soldiers. Notwithstanding, they take on tasks that used to be assigned exclusively to diplomats, such as negotiating with foreign governments and their home companies about cooperating on the design, implementation and enforcement of economic sanctions.

The rise of these financial warriors has so far only been documented in autobiographical accounts of former protagonists. Having dethroned mercantilism as a dominant paradigm of international political economy, liberal ideas exerted a lasting impact on decision-makers, as evidenced in the words of former U. In particular, the use of economic sanctions stretches back as far as the city states of ancient Greece. In the past, scholarship overwhelmingly neglected the economic means available to diplomats.

David A. Due to their vast body of specialized and general knowledge, acquired through systematic education and training, diplomats must continue to play a central role in the design, implementation, and enforcement of economic sanctions. This is because of their ability to weigh competing policy objectives in the pursuit of diplomacy, according to their short- and long-term implications. As Sir Robert F. A second career path with a focus on specialized training for tasks such as designing and implementing trade and financial sanctions could be a viable solution.

The challenge to diplomacy for numerous Western countries has become domestic in nature. Unlike in that earlier era, there has been no outright abandonment of international organizations IOs , as punctuated by the failure of the League of Nations. Rather than disappearing, IOs have proliferated, albeit with a bias towards informal self-selected forums including the G20 and the Financial Stability Board.

In many ways, liberal internationalism continues to hold sway, at least as judged by the degree of complex interdependence. Instead of the hold of autarchy with large national champions having exclusive authority in zones of control , it is the image of hyper-globalization that defines the 21 st century.

Moreover, reflecting this kind of pluralism, it is no longer a hegemonic or unipolar era. At the core of the current dilemma is that diplomacy and its institutions are contested and stigmatized domestically by populist forces. However, this type of contestation can be located in multiple sites beyond the UK as well. On top of all this, of course, is the concerted challenge to contemporary diplomatic culture that U. President Donald Trump presents. On one level, to be sure, Trump can be depicted as a return to an older type of diplomacy.

After all, small states were among those that experienced the heaviest diplomatic casualties of the global financial crisis. Furthermore, space for normatively driven diplomatic initiatives, which was led in some considerable part by small states, for example at the International Court, has been curtailed. That the contested view of diplomacy and diplomats is most robust in countries at the core of the international system, is a dynamic that can only be understood in the context of a backlash against a wider segment of established institutional culture.

What is new and different is the connection between celebrity status and populism rather than an institutional connection. Foreign ministries have become more fragile in their standing across a wide spectrum of countries. Through this type of framework, therefore, it is not surprising that diplomacy and diplomats have faced challenges of even a more formidable nature beyond the West when a combination of celebrity status and populism completely captures a state.

As Serbin and Serbin Pont put it:. Changes included the modification of the Pedro Gual diplomatic academy so that professionals entering the diplomatic service would also have to do social service and experience personally the structure of the Bolivarian social missions and to acknowledge their effects on the revolution.

Personalism is no longer restricted to the leaders of distinctive political parties. Even with these caveats, nonetheless, the challenge to diplomacy and foreign ministries is a serious one. The efforts of Michael McFaul, the then U.

Ambassador to Russia — , on Twitter with a following of 60,, falls into this category. So does the effort of U. Facing the challenge of populism, diplomacy and diplomats need to be far more reactive.

Representation, in terms of standing and acting for others, is a core function of diplomacy. Historically, diplomats represented individual rulers; today they represent states. Their representative role hinges on the predominance of states in international relations.

Representing states diplomatically in the 21 st century is far from unproblematic. In the first part of this chapter, I will attempt to identify some contemporary and future challenging issues of state representation through diplomats. Moreover, in the 21 st century actors other than states make claims to diplomatic representation. The second part of my chapter will therefore discuss the implications and challenges of broader diplomatic representation.

The diplomat is then a representative in the same sense that a flag represents a nation. Representation implies not only status standing for others but also behaviour acting for others.

Principal-agent relations arise whenever one party principal delegates certain tasks to another party agent. Due to conflicting preferences and information asymmetry, agents may pursue other interests than those of the principal. Delegation is therefore usually combined with control mechanisms, such as monitoring and audits. The proper behaviour of a representative is a matter of intense debate, especially in the literature on representative democracy.

However, this is a simplification. While varying in restrictions, the instructions and bargaining mandate of diplomats often allow room for initiative within the given frames. Diplomatic representation rests on two-way communication and mutual influence. Are there, then, specific issues of diplomatic representation in the 21 st century?

Hereafter, I will identify some changes and trends, and raise questions concerning their implications.

As for symbolic representation, I will discuss the change from immunity to vulnerability and the question of whether diplomats ought to mirror the society they represent. How can diplomats represent divided societies? And what problems are associated with representing a populist regime? For centuries, the fact that diplomats represented venerable principals — from powerful monarchs to established states — guaranteed their protected and privileged status.

No longer being inviolable symbols, diplomatic representatives have increasingly become highly vulnerable symbols. In a polarized world diplomats and diplomatic facilities have become soft targets for terrorist attacks.

One veteran U. This raises the question of whether there are non-militarized approaches to restoring the protection and security of diplomats that have been a hallmark of diplomacy throughout centuries.

The tendency toward increasing insecurity and vulnerability not only impedes diplomatic tasks but also threatens to render the recruitment process of qualified personnel more difficult. Standing for others can be understood in another, more literal, sense. To what extent do diplomats need to mirror the social and ethnic composition of the societies they represent?

The idea that diplomats should be an accurate reflection or typical of the society they represent is quite recent. With increasing migration, many — if not most — states will have a multiethnic and multicultural character in the 21 st century.

However, the question needs to be raised how important the symbolic value of accurately reflecting their society might be in the perceptions of relevant audiences. In many diplomatic establishments around the world there is an ongoing quest to end formal and informal barriers and bring about gender parity, which will no doubt pervade the 21 st century.

The nature of the principal is one important factor determining the nature of diplomatic representation. Specifically, it matters whether the diplomatic agent has a single principal or receives instructions from a collective body. And whereas democratic states place diplomats at the end of multiple chains of principals and agents, diplomats representing contemporary authoritarian states, with one clearly identifiable principal, have more restrictive mandates.

We need to think harder about differing parameters of diplomatic representation between democracies and autocracies and the possible consequences of this. The changing balance between democratic and authoritarian states in the 21 st century constitutes quite a change from the optimistic predictions of the final victory of liberal democracies after the end of the Cold War. This ought to make us think harder about differing parameters of diplomatic representation between democracies and autocracies and what consequences these might have.

The use of digital platforms by autocracies for info warfare represents a new facet of 21 st century diplomacy. On the other hand, digital diplomacy offers an effective tool for democratic states to bypass the controlled media in authoritarian states. A specific case of representation dilemmas in the 21 st century occur in divided societies. On the one hand, this would seem to grant diplomats more leeway. But, on the other hand, the lack of firm and consistent policies, standpoints and instructions complicates life for diplomats significantly.

Populism yields a democratic representation problem. The U. Among U. As this current example illustrates, the problem of representing populist regimes is interrelated to the issue of differing principal-agent interests as well as the difficulty of representing divided societies.

In addition, staffs are recruited among member-state diplomats. The representational function of EU delegations is well established and EU diplomats take an active part in the local corps diplomatique. Sceptics wonder how the two sets of career streams in the Commission and the Council Secretariat can be fused. The emergence of the EU as a diplomatic persona has not replaced, but merely added a new layer to, traditional diplomacy. Nor are there indications that other supranational entities than the EU will be granted similar diplomatic status and representation in the foreseeable future.

Regions and cities are then not recognized as diplomatic personae with representation of their own. Nor are constituent states in federal governments. However, there is an increased activity of subnational units. Today, some authors speak of a renaissance of cities as international actors. Subnational levels of federal nations constitute a special case. Scotland, Wales, Catalonia and Bavaria are other examples of regional diplomatic representation.

States and international institutions are engaging TNAs as policy experts, service providers, compliance watchdogs, and stakeholder representatives. Actors behind popular digital platforms, such as Google and Facebook, have a considerable political impact by how they organize our access to information.

However, in a passive way, these platforms already impact the way diplomacy is conducted as well as the international standing of diplomats. In sum, one may speak of a transnational turn in diplomacy. The crucial question is whether TNAs from the poor half of the world will acquire the necessary resources to be represented in international forums in the 21 st century. Representation is not a simple and static concept, but a complex and dynamic one.

In this chapter, I have pointed to some, but by no means all, contemporary issues of representation. I have raised questions, but have not provided any answers. The problems of acting for others, discussed here, pertain to the changing nature of principals: the difference between democratic and authoritarian states; and the specific complications associated with divided states and populist regimes.

As for non-state representation, the uncertain future development of the EU will determine the significance of the supranational challenge, with no rival regional diplomatic actors in sight. The transnational challenge, on the other hand, has transformative potential by eroding the exclusive cross-border authority of states.

Representation, in sum, is best understood as a process rather than a static relationship. It is a process of mutual interaction between principals and agents. The most fascinating aspect of technological disruption is its remarkable capacity for both destruction and creation. On the other hand, by laying the groundwork for new economic or social opportunities, they also stimulate new thinking and innovative practices that reinforce and sustain these technologies in the long term.

This observation may prove particularly valuable for understanding the evolution of digital diplomacy and the extent to which the recent adoption of digital technologies by Ministries of Foreign Affairs MFAs will be able to substantially change the way in which diplomacy is practiced, or whether it will have only a marginal effect on its mode of operation. The first mega-trend actively encourages digital adoption and is driven by the dual process of rapid acceleration of technological disruption, on the one hand, and the MFAs commitment to thrive in an increasingly competitive environment, on the other hand.

The 5G technology, which is due to arrive in just a few years, will likely usher in a whole new level of technological disruption, which could lead to the mass adoption of an entire range of tech tools of growing relevance for diplomacy, such as virtual reality VR and augmented reality AR in public diplomacy or artificial intelligence in consular services. Augmented reality AR adds digital elements to a live view often by using the camera on a smartphone.

Virtual reality VR implies a complete immersion experience that shuts out the physical world. Using VR devices such as HTC Vive, Oculus Rift or Google Cardboard, users can be transported into a number of real-world and imagined environments such as the middle of a squawking penguin colony or even the back of a dragon. In fact, as Sandre points out, the future is already here. At the lower end of the complexity scale, chat-bots now assist with visa applications, legal aid for refugees, and consular registrations.

Staying ahead of the technological curve will likely require a cognitive shift from following to anticipating and possibly pushing new trends. However, by anticipating new trends, they could better operate in an increasingly competitive digital environment and set the rules and standards of digital practice before others have the chance to do it. For example, by mining open-source data from social media, satellite imagery and blogs, the Embers project sponsored by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity IARPA has generated, since , highly accurate forecasts of influenza-like illness case counts, rare disease outbreaks, civil unrest, domestic political crises, and elections.

DDS consists of three key layers. The first layer is demand driven and connects institutional actors, groups and stakeholders that directly benefit from digital diplomatic programs. It may include diaspora groups in need of good digital consular services, embassies in critical spots facing public diplomacy challenges, and think tanks providing consultancy to MFAs on digital matters. The second layer is functional and task-oriented. Similarly, embassies and consulates based in conflict-risk regions could share experiences and best practices regarding the use of digital technologies in crisis situations.

Digital pioneers working in embassies, academics researching digital diplomatic practices and private IT companies are the most likely nodes in this network. Diplomatic engagement requires a minimum level of shared understanding and mutual openness in order to work. Such possibility arguably dissipates when emotions overwhelmingly frame and dominate the discourse by which opinions are formed online, and when facts are pushed into a secondary or marginal position.

Emotional commodification i. As the connection between emotions and social media becomes stronger and more sophisticated, the question of how digital diplomats can adapt to an emotionally charged form of social communication can no longer be ignored. In short, DEI could facilitate careful digital navigation through emotion-laden situations and steer the conversation back on a path informed by fact-based reasoning. MFAs and governments should therefore invest in the education of their staff to be better equipped to navigate this digital environment.

Recent studies have shown that up to 15 percent of Twitter accounts are in fact bots rather than people, and this number is bound to increase in the future. It is also important to remind ourselves that digital diplomacy is not supposed to be an end in itself, but rather to inform and serve foreign policy objectives. Robo-trolling i. Digital diplomats may not be therefore able to prevent AI from disrupting their relationship building activities, but they may contain some of its negative ramifications.

Digital enthusiasts working in embassies may seek to push ahead with experimentation and innovation, especially in public diplomacy, and with varying degrees of success. One way in which this tension could be mitigated is by drawing on the output vs. In sum, managing strategic entropy is a matter of understanding how to prioritise and balance digital outputs vs. If technological acceleration will be seen as an opportunity for ecosystem-based, pro-active, and network-oriented adaptation, then digital diplomacy is likely to penetrate the deep core of the diplomatic DNA.

Rather than joining current affairs commentary on the impact of social media in international politics, we will, in this chapter, first turn to literature that can help throw a light on underlying issues. It is our aim to inform the study of diplomacy as well as diplomatic practice with relevant theoretical insights and conceptualizations from this field. We conclude with general policy recommendations for MFAs. Agreement on essential terminology and a shared understanding of core concepts matters — and is not just relevant for academics.

In this context of changing practices, we need to reflect on the depth and extent of digital technology, first as a new medium for states and other international actors to communicate and conduct relations, and secondly as a condition. Before arriving at conclusions about the impact of technological change in the practice of international relations, it is worthwhile to continue reflecting on the capacities of these new technologies.

New warfare tactics used by Russian military intelligence during the U. Concretely, such societized diplomacy results in new dynamics in government-society relations and, arguably, more domestically oriented MFAs. Many international challenges of our time have acquired some kind of digital dimension, such that their corresponding technologies provide a platform for social, political and economic activities that could be understood as being computationally formalized.

Facebook and Google have already been attempting to tackle problems such as filter bubbles and fake news from a technical standpoint — yet, they may greatly benefit from the perspective of those specialized in interpreting and resolving the nature of such issues, such as conflict and misinformation.

Digital literacy would then range from engaging with ready-made software as a user all the way to coding it, gaining leverage over how users shall access it and what it allows one to do with it. In the same way that certain companies conceive of sociality, transportation or marketing in terms of information and information systems, digital diplomacy would invite policy to conceive of entities, processes, strategies and values relevant to diplomacy at least partly as computational entities.

Digital literacy would then also refer to the ability to take on computation as a form of governance attuned to contemporary instruments of power, such as software. Thus, digital literacy would equally amount to the individual ability to make an informed assessment of how these technologies are designed, and in what terms diplomats can approach those that design them: tech actors.

Ultimately, combining essentially technical and political rationales is what the deliberative process of digital diplomats could come down to. MFAs have therefore started thinking about the fundamental implications of digital transformation for the physical structures of their headquarters and embassies. To be sure, the advent of social media has shown entirely new dynamics in the relationship between diplomacy and technology.

Following the Arab Spring, a variety of international crises between and were major learning opportunities for governments. They offer ready-to-use products such as computers and other hands-on devices, but they also provide the means to create software that is tailored to internal or proactive diplomatic needs.

One important consequence of these fast-moving developments is that the governance of the digital realm needs to catch up. Common sense in the digital age therefore dictates that diplomats should remain critical of real-life actors behind software, of their intentions and of how they pursue their aims, and to what effect.

In recent years, some western governments have lost their relative innocence. They follow the lead of more astute countries — ranging from Russia to Sudan and Israel to Iran — as well as non-governmental actors working in the interests of a better world, or engaged in violent action and with contested motives, such as terrorist groups or rebel movements.

Digital diplomacy is then not so much an active and continuous search for attention online, as it is in a lot of public diplomacy. The practices of digital communication and outreach to foreign and domestic audiences do in fact seem to have disrupted public diplomacy to an extent that deserves urgent examination.

Mechanisms constituting digital technologies can be actively used as tools to operationalize political and diplomatic interests. As diplomacy is increasingly enacted in a digital environment, diplomats should be critical of real-life actors behind software, of their intentions and how they pursue their aims, and to what effect.

MFAs that have the capability to create software for diplomatic purposes but do not yet do so are at a disadvantage in comparison with more astute counterparts and non-governmental actors. Mechanisms constituting digital technologies can be used as a medium to operationalize political and diplomatic interests.

The number of organized and institutionalized actors actively participating in the international sector is steadily increasing. In addition, new partly-, pseudo- or quasi-governmental actors have come along. I will make six observations, drawing mainly from the German experience. The way foreign policy is conducted needs to adapt continuously.

Situations involving crisis and conflict in particular require intense communication among all involved parties. In Europe, Berlin will very often be one of the involved capitals. However, simply because of time constraints, it will not always be possible to equally inform all member states of the EU. This inclusive effort mitigates the problem of asymmetrical influence between larger and smaller states, but is not enough to solve it. During immediate and time-sensitive cases, communication increasingly takes place directly between capitals.

Not merely the formal meetings of heads of government or specialized ministers, but also the numerous other formal and informal bi- and multilateral meetings. At these meetings opinions are expressed and agreements are reached that relativize the coordinating function of the foreign ministries in European affairs. In addition, all relevant federal ministries in Germany have established task forces concerning international and European policy aspects of their ministries.

Official representation of federal states at the EU is functioning similarly. In the case of the newly created Alternative for Germany AfD Europe-wide coordination of anti-European parties has only just begun. Many of these parties belong to parliaments or governments on national levels. The role of party associations on the European level is significantly weaker than the role of national parties.

However, party associations are effective as transnational networks and as instruments giving still predominantly national politics a transnational frame. In that respect, national and European politicians can exert influence in this area. Diplomats are often affected by the agreements thus made, but are seldom involved and sometimes insufficiently informed. Due to the informal nature of these kinds of meetings and agreements, so far very few studies have examined their role.

Finally: Foreign policy is traditionally seen as the prerogative of the executive branch. This is true of the German Bundestag and also applies to the still undervalued European Parliament. There is only one institution in the transatlantic relationship whereby members of parliament on both sides of the Atlantic can regularly meet for an intense dialogue regarding foreign and security policy issues: the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO.

One outstanding concrete example demonstrates how the Parliamentary Assembly can exert influence. Several years before the German Federal Government and the U.

The strengthening role of national parliaments in the diplomacy of their countries is thus something new, and governments benefit from contributions coming from different perspectives.

It is possible that diplomats are thus not yet adequately prepared for these changes. This calls for skills that can be acquired and developed on the job: prior knowledge of the situation and willingness to understand it better; good contacts and interaction with all sectors of society, from officials to civil society; agility in writing timely, clear, and concise reports to the right echelon, with the added value of analysis compared to information available from other sources mainly media, including social media.

This requires active contacts with all sectors of the local population, not only the officials and the elites. Diplomats are expected to entertain guests on a regular basis, hence the need for them to have good knowledge of both universal and local protocol rules and a good practice of cross-cultural communication. The GCSP is not responsible for and may not always verify the accuracy of the information contained in the written publications submitted by a writer.

My GCSP. Op-ed Back to all Trending. Key skills for the five main diplomatic functions. Register for now for the Diplomatic Tradecraft for Non-Diplomats course.

In , Iraq invaded the neighboring country of Kuwait. When Iraq refused to leave Kuwait, the United Nations approved a military response. A coalition , or group of nations working together, fought the Iraqi army, forcing them out of Kuwait.

Successful negotiation results in a diplomatic agreement. The most formal kind of an agreement is a treaty, a written contract between countries. It was signed in Versailles, France. Diplomats from the Central Powers , including Germany and Austria, were not allowed to negotiate the treaty.

However, diplomats from other Central Powers nations and the Allied Powers , including the United States, approved the treaty. Some treaties require years of diplomatic negotiation.

The talks continued through Another type of agreement is a convention , which is signed by multiple nations and becomes international law. The most famous are the Geneva Convention s, which outline the treatment of prisoners of war, civilian s, and medical personnel in a war zone. The first convention was signed in Geneva, Switzerland, in The fourth, and perhaps most important, was signed in after World War II.

Protocol s, the least formal diplomatic procedure, change or expand an existing agreement. The Kyoto Protocol, signed in Kyoto, Japan, was produced in The Kyoto Protocol aims to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gas es released into the atmosphere.

Recognition When a country declares independence, it needs to be recognized as independent by other countries. Countries may recognize new nations by receiving ambassadors and diplomatic missions. Free From Harm Top diplomats have immunity, or protection, from search, arrest, and lawsuits in the country to which they are sent.

They cannot be fined, arrested, or harmed in any way, even during war, and they are not searched when they cross borders. This diplomatic immunity allows them to do their work and negotiate freely. Embassies are also not subject to the host country's rules. In fact, they are considered part of the territory of the sending country. Also called the Triple Entente.

Also called the Triple Alliance. Also called the Rio Summit. State Department concerned with representing and carrying out the foreign policy of the U. Foreign Service, formulating and representing U. State Department who provides administrative, technical, and security support for the Foreign Service system, both within the U.

Palestinian National Authority organization responsible for governing the semi-independent areas of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in Israel. Regions are the basic units of geography. Also called the Great War. The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit.

The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited. Caryl-Sue, National Geographic Society. Dunn, Margery G. For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher.

They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource. If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service. Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives. A political boundary is an imaginary line separating one political unit, such as a country or state, from another.

Sometimes these align with a natural geographic feature like a river to form a border or barrier between nations. Occasionally, two countries may contest where a particular border is drawn. These disputes might arise due to a natural resource both groups want, like in the case of Sudan and South Sudan, or in an attempt to gain more political power, as in the case of Pakistan and India in the Kashmir region.

Use these resources to explore more about political boundaries. Ancient Greek politics, philosophy, art and scientific achievements greatly influenced Western civilizations today. One example of their legacy is the Olympic Games. Use the videos, media, reference materials, and other resources in this collection to teach about ancient Greece, its role in modern-day democracy, and civic engagement.

Different groups of people often come into conflict when a problem cannot be solved, when values clash, or when there is ambiguity over ownership of land and resources. Diplomacy, the art of maintaining peaceful relationships without the use of violence, can help turn conflict into cooperation.

Share these resources with your students to examine various conflicts around the world and instances of different communities working together successfully.