PLURALIZATION OF MODERN DIPLOMACY AND BOSNIA AND

HERZEGOVINA
Phd. Safet Halilovi
Faculty of Political Science of Sarajevo

PLURALIZATION OF MODERN DIPLOMACY AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

SUMMARY

According to its internal peculiarities, modern diplomacy differs from the traditional, two-sided one, in its
pluralization towards multilateral diplomacy; as opposed to secret diplomacy, a concept of public diplomacy is
being introduced, and the multiplication of international meetings and conferences causes the development of
parliamentary diplomacy, while frequent meetings of heads of states and governments develop summit diplomacy.
Cold War resulted in a total diplomacy, and it replaced the detente diplomacy. In addition to the economic and
military diplomacy, a shuttle diplomacy has been gradually built, after the secret one, comes an open and public
diplomacy, and then an alibi and preventive diplomacy.
Foreign policy and diplomacy of Bosnia and Herzegovina should, in achieving their primary objectives, make use
of all modern forms of diplomatic actions in their efforts to build and develop the country itself as a democratic,
lawful, economically prosperous and socially stable state, and to work on its international affirmation and
accession to Euro-Atlantic integration.
Kljune rijei: state of B&H, determination and pluralization of diplomacy, bilateral, multilateral, economic, military
and summit diplomacy, public, alibi, preventive and shuttle diplomacy, restitution of B&H and its reform.
INTRODUCTION

International and legal recognition of the independent and sovereign State of Bosnia and Herzegovina that
happend in 1992 resulted in, among other things, the need of fast organization and action of the appropriate office
of foreign affairs which would, through its diplomacy of a newly established independent state, work on priority
objectives of ending the war and positioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a fully legal factor within the
international relations. In today's phase of country's development, our diplomacy should, as one of its primary
tasks of action, contribute, as is suitable for countries in transition, to building of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a
democratic, legal, economically prosperous and socialy stable state, and, before anything else, to its international
affirmation and joining the Euro-Atlantic integration.
Intensive development of modern diplomatic relations implies inclusion in the process of practically all of the forms
of international cooperation, as well as professional and qualified employees in the institutions of foreign affairs
who will, through appropriate training, acquire the necessary specialist knowledge on the diplomatic rules, status
issues, forms of communication, and all other relevant factors in the field of international relations and on
regulating relations between international legal entities and their representatives.

TOWARDS THE DEFINITION OF DIPLOMACY

Considering all the distinctions and the ambiguity of the term diplomacy, it would be acceptable to define the term
diplomacy as the one that usually involves conducting state affairs in the field of foreign policy through official
relations with other countries and international organizations
Development of diplomacy causes the diplomatic activity to spread on other relations in addition to political.
Additionally, there is an increasing demand to diplomatically organize new areas, other than normally expected,
and focal point of international relations such as human rights, migration, fight against international crime and
terrorism, environmental issues, technological standardization needs, etc. All these needs require of modern
diplomacy to be is transformed into a profession with more specialist knowledge. Also, the rapid technological
development in communications changes the character of diplomatic communication, leading to the globalization
of information, which is directly related to the increase in the influence of the media and the general public on the
processes in international relations.
Having all this in mind, it is clear that the diplomatic actions of every state are a dynamic process of a wide range
of activities whose priorities are affected by changes in the internal and international relations. Undoubtedly, the
primary goal of any diplomatic engagement should be in the service of universal values within the international
relations like ensuring peace, the promotion of democracy and human rights, promoting economic and cultural
prosperity, adherence to norms of international law, rejecting the use of force, and the development of all forms of
international cooperation.
RAZUENOST DIPLOMATSKOG DJELOVANJA
Considering the fact that diplomacy has been the means of state relations and interests and goals within the
international domain, it has been, while reflecting the spirit and characteristics of its respective times, going
through various changes. It has been closely connected to international and all other affairs of different epochs in
the development of humanity, changing its own methods, forms and all other characteristics.
Modern diplomacy, whose emergence is tied to changes that occurred after World War II, is being pluralized
towards its internal features, so that in addition to the traditional two-sided, bilateral diplomacy, there is more and
more talk about multilateral diplomacy. As opposed to secret diplomacy, which was dominant in the past, a
concept of public diplomacy is now being introduced. The making of international organizations, increase in
number of international meetings and conferences, and the specificity of their procedures and methods of work
consequently lead to the development of parliamentary diplomacy, and frequent meetings of heads of states and
governments develop a special kind of summit diplomacy, in other words, diplomacy at the top. During the period
of the Cold War, all the bipolar confrontations of political blocks led to the notion of total diplomacy, and the
abatement in their relations to detente diplomacy. Particular sort of diplomatic activity aimed to disable
international conflicts is marked as preventive diplomacy. (S. Berkovic, 15)
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from 1961, primary tasks of modern diplomacy are:
presentation, protection, monitoring and notifying, negotiation, promotion of friendly relations and activities in the
development of economic, cultural, scientific and other relations among states.
BILATERAL DIPLOMACY
Unlike from the early forms of diplomatic activities known as diplomacy of temporary representatives and ad hoc
delegations, in the sixteenth century there were introduced permanent diplomatic missions, embassies and
mission as a form of relations between two countries, in other words, a bilateral diplomacy was established. The
practice so far has confirmed that the ongoing of relations between states and their improvement is impossible
without permanent diplomatic representatives and that without bilateral diplomacy, activities such as
representation, representation of interests, monitoring and reporting, are unimaginable, as well as basic functions
of diplomacy. The fact that bilateral diplomacy is the simplest and most common form of mutual communication
between two countries is unquestionable. These relations go from bilateral meetings of heads of states of the two
countries, their ambassadors, to the lowest officers in the ministries of foreign affairs and embassies of the two
countries. Matters of bilateral relations are the most important issues of high politics expressed through issues of

national security, military-political and economic positioning, as well as those of more routine nature, such as
visas, border crossings, border-crossing zones, etc.
MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY
Its full development and modern characteristics, multilateral diplomacy reaches only after the Second World War,
in the time of establishment and afirmation of the United Nations and other international organizations, and then
with wave of strengthening of regional inter-govermental organizations. The development of multilateral diplomacy
has precipitated holding of meetings and international conferences, on regular basis and temporary ones, and
now it has become an important factor in solving of the most important problems of the modern world, from
harmonizing of the main directions of world politics, to codifying and standardization of norms in a number of
areas of human life. One of the factors that went in favor of such an expansion of multilateral diplomacy was the
fact that the UN has managed to achieve the full degree of universality, which all made possible the participation
of its members in a number of significant aspects of multilateral diplomacy at the universal level. (M. Mitic, 15)
When defined as a conscious action on the part of state in cooperation with other countries in their realization of
common objectives, multilateral diplomacy can be divided in two groups of different activities through which they
manifest themselves. One is conference, consisting of an organized international institution, universal (UN) or of
regional significance (OSC, NATO, OAS), with set rules of its operation, which is of permanent character. In these
organizations, diplomats act according to the instructions of their governments and in full diplomatic capacity.

The other one is known as conference diplomacy where the multilateralism is expressed through international
conferences where concrete issues from the areas of economy (GATT), ecology (the Kyoto Protocol) and
commerce (WTO) with participation of diplomatic representatives that have authorized for solving such issues. In
terms of duration, such coferences in some cases grow into organizations (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for instance), while in some other cases, an attempt of creating a stabile international
structure did not succeed, for example Non-Aligned Movement. (R. Vukadinovi, 146) Scopes of international
conferences can be global or regional.
ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY
In a classical type of diplomacy, it was a means of achieving specific political goals of international legal parties,
where there was an evident separation of economic and political objectives and functions. In modern diplomacy
that duality disappears and diplomacy works on both, economic and foreign policy goals, while institutionalizing
itself in the forms of international economic relations and economic diplomacy.
In the modern context, economic diplomacy has recognized the links between trade and diplomacy that had
already existed in the past. With the development of international communications there has been an increase in
an interest in the use of economic diplomacy as an important part of the state's external actions. As a form of geoeconomic innovations, it is well known President Clinton's insistence on constant opening and expanding of
markets, and strengthening of economic ties with the world, within which there is a special so called war room
consisting of a group of 20 experts whose task was to work on the issues of U.S. exports. (R. Vukadinovic, 2005,
146)
According to the President Chirac, in just one year of his statesman journeys, he secured France 120 billion of
francs worth of business affairs, and President Berlusconi has reformed Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy in a way
that he appointed bankers, financiers and businessmen in the positions of ambassadors. The opponents of the
overemphasized role of economic diplomacy believe that the primary function of diplomacy is its political aspect,
and that embassies can help in the development of economic ties, but that they cannot be reduced to some kind
of representation offices of the economic chambers or large companies, because those chambers open their own
representation offices in the places of their own interest. Large companies, they believe, have developed their
own relations and connections, so they do not need embassies.

MILITARY DIPLOMACY
By the Hague Convention from 1907, the procedural issues of peaceful conflict resolution as an essential tool of
diplomacy were specified. The function of diplomacy as a tool in creating and maintaining of military alliances,
negotiating of mutual security and cooperation on the military level, the existence of foreign military bases abroad,
the issue of military aid and arming certain armies lead to the greater engagement of special diplomatic activity
known as military diplomacy.
Due to the increased complexity, scope of work and competence, modern military-diplomatic relations surpassed
the earlier role of a single military attach and began to conuct its activities through various forms of military and
diplomatic practices, such as military diplomacy at the top, military-diplomatic delegations, military economic
missions, military missions and military commissions.
As an integral part of the general diplomacy, military diplomacy carries out its activities mainly within the
framework of the embassy and with its help, not receding from the fundamental tasks of embassies and other
diplomatic missions, and even performing some additional functions.
The emergence and development of multilateral military diplomacy was conditioned by the creation of militarypolitical blocs during the Cold War, and additionally, with the expansion of NATO, which has brought an increase
in interest of a large number of countries in transition for joining the military alliance, multilateral military diplomacy
acquires new contents and areas of activity.
The new organization of economic and political power and the emergence of the so-called asymmetric wars and
new forms of danger have foregrounded terrorism as an inevitable global problem of the 21st century. Being a
new challenge for multilateral military diplomacy, the emergence of terrorism leads to the formation of the antiterrorist coalition and the search for the optimal model of fighting terrorism and these are the primary military and
political interests of most developed countries.
HEAD DIPLOMACY
We can trace the practice of head diplomacy far in the past, even before the bilateral diplomacy of the permenent
missions, but its full affirmation head diplomacy has gained in the last few decades by the institutionalization of
more bodies, from regional to universal.
The attempts such as the one made by Donald Vote in 1963 to define summits as a new form of head diplomacy,
i.e. as multilateral meetings of acknowledged leaders of states of great power were not accepted because it was
challenged the fact those meetings were exclusively multilateral in their nature and that only states of great power
participated in them. Therefore, the formal distinction between head diplomacy as a precisely defined notion, and
summit as a special kind of diplomacy in a more general sense, was not made. (M. Miti, 16) It prevails the notion
that head diplomacy, in other words summit diplomacy reffers to holding of meetings of heads of states that
directly disccuss certain issues of common interest.
The Vienna Congress from 1815 and Paris Congress from 1919 are well known examples of summit diplomacy,
but most commonly known summits are related to Churchills pre-election speech in 1950 and to the first meeting
of four great powers in Geneva in 1955. The participants of that first summit were leaders of U.S.A., Soviet Union,
Great Briton and France, and after that summit, diplomacy is exclusively related to countless meetings of
American and Soviet leaders. These meetings saw the signing of important agreements that materialized detent
diplomacy (SALT I, SALT II, ABM Agreement).
Discussions on the issues of global community become the spotlight of the head diplomacy, but their participants
are relatively small number of countries, which makes those members of the "top club" to get a monopolistic
position. Apart from the general debate of the General Assembly of the UN, or some ceremonial or
commemorative occasions where common positions are not defined and discussed, the summits of heads of
states and governments at the universal level is almost nonexistent.

The fact that direct meetings offer possibility to political leaders to get themselves personally acquainted, enter
into certain friendships, after which they can easily solve even the most difficult of specific issues, indicates the
necessity, importance and exceptional use of head diplomacy.
Some authors believe that direct meetings top political leaders can create a distorteted image of reality in the
perception of a certain leader, so that he may come under the influence of specific circumstances and personality
of his interlocutor, which will lead him to judge all the events in that previously obtained positive light. That was the
case with Roosevelt who believed his cooperation with Stalin could be successful because "Roosevelt relied on
his personal relations with Stalin."
Among those who have expressed serious misgivings about head diplomacy are the former U.S. undersecretary
George Ball, who underlines that the participants of the head diplomacy are prominent persons who have the
sovereign authority of their regimes and are practically the last instances of all major political issues, furthermore,
they ignore political details and are vain and too sensitive towards the needs of heads of governments who are
their friends and whom they treat as members of the same union, and that their activities are followed by mass
publicity which is of importance for them. Based on all this, Ball is of the opinion that the heads of states are
always in danger to make hasty concessions in order to achieve apparent success or to make a "terrible bang".
(M. Mitic, 17)
SHUTLLE DIPLOMACY
The mediation or shuttle diplomacy is also one of the forms of diplomatic activities. This type of mediatory
diplomatic activity has been a practice recently, mostly by large world forces in their attempts of resolving of
certain international conflicts, expressing in this way their power and influence. In this type of diplomacy,
specialized teams of diplomats that have roles of intermediaries travel between parties in dispute, conveying their
messages, trying to reach a common solution that would be a result of propositions made by all disputing sides,
but often by intermediaries themselves, so that a compromise could be reached.
The Emergence of shuttle diplomacy as a negotiating practice of recent date many people associate with Henry
Kissinger, National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United States (under
Nixon and Ford 1973-1977) who constantly traveled by airplane between Jerusalem, Damascus and Cairo after
the Arab-Israeli war in 1973, trying to achieve peace by negotiations. Another famous model of shuttle diplomacy
is the one used in negotiations in Camp David in September of 1978, between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat
and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in which the mediator was U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
The shuttle diplomacy involves negotiation where there is practically no direct contact between the negotiating
parties. It is done through mediaries. (Z. Kovacevic, 257) Not only does the mediator communicate messages
from one side to another, but he is also, in fact, the organizer and host, and he steers the overall negotiating
process.
Richard Holbrooke has enhanced the process of shuttle diplomacy through the Dayton negotiations that led to the
end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to achieving of peace agreement. (see: R. Holbrooke, To End the
War...) The novelty or the specificity of the Dayton negotiations was that negotiations were officially called the
proximity peace talks, because they were carried out within the air base where the houses of negotiating parties
were only ten meters away from each other, yet, they did not negotiate directly with each other. Therefore,
Holbrooke marked it as the "on foot shuttle diplomacy". In addition, negotiators were isolated with no contact with
the public, with a goal to negotiate until they reach a final agreement.
SECRET, OPEN AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
In the history of diplomacy, secret agreements were very often made, especially in the nineteenth century. There
have been informal secret agreements that have affected the fates of states, such as the infamous message
exchange between Churchill and Stalin on the percentage of distribution of spheres of influence in Eastern and
Southeastern Europe. Another example of secret diplomacy and secret negotiations is the one that took place
between Israelis and Palestinians in Oslo from 1992 to 1993.

SECRET DIPLOMACY is an essential component of conflict management in complicated negotiations. The

democratic character of international relations and diplomatic negotiation implies the publicity, but the success in
resolving of these conflicts is often based on confidentiality in their unfolding, which made the French diplomat
Gilles Kumbona to say that "any negotiation will become impossible on that day of its declassification." (From:
Kovacevic, 198)
The secret diplomacy contains two dimensions of the problem, secret treaties and negotiations far away from the
public eye, where the essential difference is between the secret treaties as such and secret holding of
negotiations that ends with public closing of agreement. In modern diplomacy, negotiations may be secret, but not
the agreements. The UN Charter, with its Article 102 committed all member states to submit all the international
agreements made, to the Secretariat of the UN, which publishes them within text publications of all international
treaties made in a certain period. This puts secret treaties above the international law because the signing parties
of such agreements that are not registered cannot refer to them before any UN body.
As opposed to this one, an OPEN DIPLOMACY would be carrying out of negotiations that are not hidden from the
public.
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, as the term, was first mentioned in the 70s of the 20th century and was related to changes
in U.S. foreign policy relating the role of foreign affairs agencies, propaganda, humanitarian exchanges and
ideological activities. Public type of actions becomes an essential part of Carters doctrine of foreign policy and
human rights concept. At the White House there was established a special group for public diplomacy with the
aim of providing information and a task to make public diplomacy to act publicly, openly and loudly. (R.
Vukadinovi, 147) Crossing the boundaries of inter-state diplomacy, public diplomacy is the governments means
of an organized way to accomplish the change of mood in other countries. It is the task of members of the U.S.
public diplomacy (public diplomacy offices) to present the U.S. policy and actions to other countries in the best
possible light. In addition to that, they advise their government on all the possible implications of public opinion in
other about U.S. foreign policy. Therefore, Geoff R. Beridge is of the opinion that public diplomacy is in fact
"foreign propaganda carried out or undertaken by diplomats". (Mr. R. Beridge 16)

American public diplomacy does not create but it is its obligation to explain foreign policy, which was the reason
for founding the USIA (United States Information Agency) in 1999 within the State Department.
Other states have similar practice of promoting public diplomacy among as one of the main tasks of diplomatic
missions while ministries of foreign affairs introduce special sectors for the press and information. Departments
and the cultural attaches, British Council, Goethe Institute and other forms of "cultural diplomacy" are also part of
the propaganda operations, as well as are radio and TV stations under direct or indirect government control
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, the BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, etc. All departments responsible
for public diplomacy, among other things, provide the breaking news better results, and this relatively new skill, by
some called "the dark art" became known as the news management and people who are specializes in news
management are colloquially called spin doctors, in other words information manipulators. Excessive and too
often spinning of information occasionally leads to counterproductive effects and public scandals, which put at risk
the subsistence of the governments.
Although it has a similar potential as the propaganda does, public diplomacy still contributes to open dialogue,
confrontation of positions and international understanding. Directed at the audience and the language of the
audience, a successful public diplomacy spreads the dialogue between citizens of their own and of other
countries. In the circumstances where public support is necessary for major changes in the position of the state,
such as joining NATO and the EU, public diplomacy turns its focus on citizens with a goal to inform them and
prepare for the new status of their state and to prepare them so the outcome of the referendum would be positive.
ALIBI DIPLOMACY

An alibi diplomacy could be identified as a special form of diplomatic activity, which implies political initiatives,
negotiations and other diplomatic activities that replace real action, aimed at gaining the support of public opinion,
whether international or domestic, and usually both. (Kovaevi, 283) In certain cases, the activities are
accompanied by the greater publicity, with the open demonstrating of determination to resolve crisis, rectify the
injustice, to initiate the peace process, etc. These are in essence feigned actions and simulated determination to
realize the proclaimed intentions, with no real desire to move on from words to deeds. There are also cases of
alibi diplomacy when a decision about, for instance, armed intervention is already adopted, but because of the
unpopularity of such an action, everything is done in order to make it seem that all the measures of resolving the
problem by negotiations and diplomatically have been taken.
Zimmerman states that the introduction of six "security zones" in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the UN Security
Council, without the necessary military provisions that would really make them safe is actually a practice of alibi
diplomacy in its multilateral form. Measures of economic sanctions are often in service of alibi diplomacy;
because, instead of carrying out concrete actions they create the illusion of it, with a goal of achieving the
expected changes in the actions of others without risks and particular efforts and to create an impression of
determination.
Some authors think the most vivid example of alibi diplomacy are negotiations in Rambouillet in 1999 between the
Serbian and Albanian sides regarding the status of Kosovo, with the mediation of the Contact Group of the
international community, consisting of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the U.S. and Russia
PREVENTIVE DIPLOMACY
Special activities closely related to multilateral diplomacy that combine different foreign policy means and
methods are called preventive diplomacy. Preventive diplomacy via negotiation treats certain issues before they
become problems and problems before they escalate into armed conflicts.
In the document Agenda for Peace (p 45) from 1992, the former UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali presented
his definition of preventive diplomacy as that of actions that need to be carried out in the post-Cold War phase of
fluid international relations with new members and numerous conflicts.
Negotiation is the essence of preventive diplomacy and it may take place directly between the parties in dispute
or through the mediation of a third party, as is often the case. Mediation is a type negotiation in which a third party
is both the initiator and catalyst for the implementation of negotiations that the conflicting parties have not been
able to accomplish alone. Depending on the type of obstacles that prevent the parties in dispute to negotiate
alone, mediators may have one of these three roles (Kovacevic, 45):
The first role of a mediator is to ensure communication between the parties and to transmit messages without his
own input into the negotiation process. He operates as the catalyst in the full meaning of that word.
The second role of mediator, when the parties in dispute cannot reach the solution to their conflict, is that of a
formulatorhe introduces his own ideas into negotiations, shows an input with his engaged search for solutions
to the problem.
The third role the mediator might have, as the parties consider suggested solutions insufficiently receptive, is that
if a manipulator who uses the method of threat and reward in order actively influence their acceptance.
As the process of political alignment of the evidently conflicting interests of states, preventive diplomacy in the
broad and narrow sense of the word, through conflict prevention as a set of measures for preventing the
occurrence of armed conflicts and internal wars, with arbitration and court proceedings as a means of dismissal of
disputes, are key instruments by which the international community, in accordance with Chapter VI of the UN
Charter, by peaceful means solves the danger to the world peace.
Divergent processes in the international community, the deepening the gap between rich and poor, jeopardizing
the environment and rapid depletion of natural resources, changes in the balance of political forces in the world,
interconnection and cooperation on the one hand and military rivalry and an arms race on the other hand, as well

as other factors - inevitably seek engagement of preventive diplomacy. The essential question is how to convert
an early warning into an early action, because after that crucial initial moment, a real opportunity to influence the
events is actually already belated. Such was the case with the countries of the EU (then EC) that in terms of the
breakup of Yugoslavia in the 90s due to hesitation, negotiations in Maastricht Treaty and the fascination with the
re-unification of Germany - missed the right moment at the beginning of the crisis, while national leaders were still
weak and uncertain and the crisis had not gone too far, to use all the mechanisms of well-organized and
concentrated preventive diplomacy.
The new organization of political forces in the international arena, especially the differences in the interests of the
great powers and other factors have led to the fact that practice of preventive diplomacy began to assume
different proportions, forms and contents of the one originally conceived. The pressure to make the UN preventive
diplomacy serve global governance processes at the international level has strengthen, and certain targeted
changes are designed, implemented and encouraged just as her mask. In this sense, postmodern scholars have
created new instruments such as the soft law, the right to intervene prior to war (preemptive war), the
responsibility to protect (R2P) and the like. (DN Vasi, 356) These legal innovations often functioned as a
justification for the interference from outside in the internal affairs of states, so that they can lay down the criteria
for the organization of government, the creation of the economic system, the reform of the armed forces and
police, and the total reconstruction of the cooperative model of behavior in international relations. The preventive
diplomacy was at first preferred means of resolving disputes, but over time, because of its controversial practice
by some powerful countries, it turned into something that smaller countries were afraid of. In the occasions when
it was in accordance with the UN Charter, it served to strengthen confidence in the international state system and
international law in general.
FROM THE PAST OF B&H DIPLOMACY
Ever since its creation mediaeval Bosnian state had its own particular forms of inter-state relations, at first they
were of basic character, and later very developed, so that the early feudal state of Bosnia had, in accordance to
those times and circumstances, appropriate political, economic and other ties, relations and cooperation with its
political ambience, it had developed appropriate diplomatic and consular relations, while building its own
diplomatic service. There are great pieces of evidence for that found in the documents presented in the relevant
studies on this issue by skilled historians A. Babi Diplomatska sluba u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni / Diplomatic
Service in Medieval Bosnia and M. unji: Bosna i Venecija (odnosi u XIV i XV stoljeu) / Bosnia and Venice
(relations in the XIV and XV centuries) as well as in numerous preserved archives.
Diplomatic service of the medieval Bosnia was one of the forms through which the organization of the state was
expressed. At first the diplomatic service was simple and direct, and with the development of state structures and
by branching of foreign policy practices, it took more developed forms, those that would be compatible to
diplomatic services of the developed countries of that time (Venice and the Dubrovnik Republic) and others. In
Bosnia's foreign relations with the outside world since the 40s of the XIV century, diplomatic service was
performed by designated delegates (ploys, envoys, ambaxatores, nuntii, oratores) and their function was
gradually becoming more stable. Written messages of the authorities of the Bosnian state became common from
that point on and they were sent to foreign governments via the aforementioned delegates. Regardless of their
specific contents, by the development of their form and sophistication of the compositions, these diplomatic
messages testify to the development of political culture as one of the aspects of cultural development in general.
(A. Babi, 283)
In medieval Bosnia foreign affairs were concentrated in the royal court. Landlords Parliament had certain
responsibilities and influence on foreign policy decisions, but all the technical aspects of diplomatic activity,
conducting of diplomatic negotiations and signing of agreements, took place on the court. In the political sense
(the palace of my kingdom, curia domini regis) the court was constituted by the ruler, who in matters of foreign
policy and decision-making played a key role, members of the immediate family of the ruler, selected nobility, and
the holders of the most important court titles. Listed persons together formed the prince's "palace" in the sense of

close council that would meet when necessary, i.e. occasionally. Although the ruler had the last word in decisions
on foreign affairs, his council, also, had the influence on his decisions.
RESTITUTION OF B&H DIPLOMACY AND ITS REFORM
Restoration of its own foreign policy and diplomatic service, Bosnia and Herzegovina achieves with the restitution
of the state independence in 1992, by the international legal recognition as a sovereign country and reception in
the United Nations Organization, the Council of Europe and other international organizations and associations.
This is the foundation on which the state institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina base its foreign policy and
diplomatic actions, and establish a wider network of diplomatic and consular missions, with the aim of positioning
our country within the present context, as an equal factor in international relations.
Foreign B&H policy and diplomacy, should take as the primary objectives of its work all the necessary steps to
build and develop their country as a democratic, legal, economically prosperous and socially stable state, its
international affirmation and accession to Euro-Atlantic integration. More than complicated position of Bosnia and
Herzegovina in the turbulent international relations on a global level, with strong dilemmas regarding further EU
expansion, in the situation where the geostrategic and geopolitical destiny of the Balkans is still undefined, assign
very difficult issues to the foreign affairs politics and diplomacy of B&H to be solved; issues of revision of strategic
priorities, adjustment to all the new circumstances, but, also, to find strength, ability, vision, skill and resources to
take steps of revisions and reforms that would take the country from a state of incomplete or semi- sovereignty or
protectorate to a fully functional state that would be capable to create its own international role in the global
political, economic and other multilateral organizations by affirming democratic values and the overall prosperity
of its citizens.
Furthermore, in the area of foreign policy operations and diplomacy it is also necessary to make the reform of the
institutions in charge of the adoption and implementation of foreign policy decisions (the Presidency, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, diplomatic-consular network), from their structural adjustment, institutional optimization to modern
personnel revitalization, which includes, among other things, integrated system of education and training of
diplomats. Only with these and other measures it is possible for the foreign policy and diplomacy of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, to grow from the active recipient of bilateral and multilateral assistance to emancipated subject of
the international diplomacy and international relations.

Prof. Safet Halilovi, Ph.D

Faculty of Political Science Sarajevo

PLURALIZATION OF MODERN DIPLOMACY

AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

SUMMARY

In accordance with its internal particularities, modern diplomacy, as compared to traditional two-sided diplomacy,
is becoming ever more pluralistic towards multilateral diplomacy, concept of public diplomacy is being introduced
versus secret diplomacy and multiplying of international meetings and conferences has led to development of
parliamentary diplomacy, meanwhile frequent meetings of heads of states and governments develop summit
diplomacy. The Cold War results in total diplomacy, and it is replaced by detente diplomacy. Shuttle diplomacy is
also gradually developed alongside economic and military diplomacy, after secret open and public diplomacy,
and then alibi and preventive diplomacy.
External policy and diplomacy of Bosnia and Herzegovina should under its activities primarily aim to use all the
contemporary forms of diplomatic action for construction and development of the country as a democratic, lawful,
economically prosperous and socially stable nation, her international affirmation and joining of Euro-atlantic
integrations.
Key words: BiH state, determination and pluralization of diplomacy, bilateral, multilateral, economic, military and
summit diplomacy, public, alibi, preventive and shuttle diplomacy, restitution of BiH diplomacy and her reform.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Babi, A., (1995): Diplomatska sluba u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo, Meunarodni centar za mir
2. Baker, J., (1995): The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War and Peace 1989-1992, New York, Putnam
3. Berkovi, S., (2006): Diplomacija i diplomatska profesija, Dubrovnik, Urban-Media
4. Berridge, G. R., (2002): Diplomacy, Hampshire, Palgrave
5. Boutros-Ghali, B., (1995): An Agenda for Peace, New York, United Nations
6. Cahill, K. M., (2000): Preventive Diplomacy: Stopping Wars Before They Start, New York, Routledge
7. Conflict prevention, (1997) Washington D.C., The Aspen Institute
8. orevi, S. i Miti M., (2000): Diplomatsko i konzularno pravo, Beograd, Javno preduzee Slubeni list SRJ
9. Felthem, R. G., (1993): Diplomatic Handbook, London, Longman Group
10. Finnemore, M., (2003): The Purpose of Intervention, Ithaca, Cornell University Press
11. Fisher, R., Juri, V., (2005): Kako da postignete dogovor, Beograd, Mono & Manana
12. Foot, R., MacFarlane, S. N., Mastanduno, M., (2003): US Hegemony and International Organizations, Oxford,
Oxford University Press
13. Fry, M. G., (2004): Guide to International Relations and Diplomacy, London, Continuum, (2012)
14. Halilovic, S., (2012): Savremena diplomatija i diplomatska sluba BiH, Sarajevo
15. Holzgrefe, J. L. i Keohane, R. O., (2003): Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas,
New York, Cambridge University Press
16. Holbrook, R., (1998): Zavriti rat, Sarajevo, ahinpai
17. Kaufman, J., (1996): Conference diplomacy, London, Macmillan
18. Kissinger, H., (1994): Diplomacy, New York, Simon & Schuster
19. Kovaevi, ., (2004): Meunarodno pregovaranje, Beograd, Diplomatska akademija MSP SCG
20. Lund, M., (1996): Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy, Washington D.C., US
Institute for Peace
21. Melisen, J., (1999): Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London, Macmillan
22. Miti, M., (1999): Diplomatija, Beograd, Zavod za udbenika i nastavna sredstva
23. Nye, J. S., (2011): The future of power, Perseus Books Group
24. Ogorec, M., (2005): Vojno-diplomatska praksa, Zagreb, Golden marketing - Tehnika knjiga
25. Smith, K., (2003): European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World, Cambridge, Polity Press
26. Stefanovi, ., (2008): Diplomatija u meunarodnim odnosima, Beograd, Fakultet politikih nauka
27. Vasi, D. N., (2010): Preventivna diplomatija, Beograd, Slubeni glasnik

28. Vukadinovi, R., (1998): Meunarodni politiki odnosi, Zagreb, Barbat

29. Watson, A., (1991): Diplomacy, London, Routledge
30. Zimmerman, W., (1997): Izvorni jedne katastrofe, Zagreb, Globus International