# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Kissinger shows balance of power evolving from Richelieu’s raison d’état after the Reformation, systematized in the Concert of Europe, undermined by nationalism, adapted to Cold War nuclear deterrence, and reemerging in today’s multipolar world as the essential tool of order.

EXAMPLE: After the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna (1815) established the Concert of Europe, where the Great Powers maintained order through balance of power. Kissinger calls this the most refined system of equilibrium in history, ensuring decades of stability

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Collective security evolved after World War I with the League of Nations, was revised after World War II with the UN, but remained limited by Cold War rivalry. Morgenthau calls it a utopian ideal often undermined by national interests, in contrast to the more resilient balance of power.

EXAMPLE: In 1935, the League of Nations failed to stop Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, proving Morgenthau’s critique that states would not sacrifice national interest for collective action. By contrast, in 1950 the UN authorized action against North Korea but only because Cold War politics temporarily aligned.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Détente developed out of America’s need to recover from Vietnam and manage Cold War tensions. It evolved through triangular diplomacy with Moscow and Beijing, arms control (SALT I), agreements like the Berlin settlement, and European initiatives such as Ostpolitik and the European Security Conference.

EXAMPLE: The SALT I Treaty (1972) exemplified détente: it marked the first arms control agreement between Washington and Moscow, reflecting Kissinger’s idea of a “structure of peace” built on negotiation rather than open confrontation.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Kissinger shows nationalism developing from a revolutionary force threatening dynastic empires (Metternich’s era), to a political tool for unification (Italy, Germany), and finally into a principle of world order through Wilson’s doctrine of self-determination. Over time, nationalism evolved from a disruptive passion into an organizing principle of international politics, reshaping diplomacy itself.

EXAMPLE: German unification (1871): Bismarck transformed nationalism from a revolutionary threat into a tool of Realpolitik, using it to unify Germany and reshape the European balance of power.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Diplomatic immunity began as ancient traditions protecting messengers, strengthened by Roman law and later expanded with permanent embassies and extraterritorial rights. Spread globally through European influence, it was later limited by the 1961 Vienna Convention, which set clear, functional rules for diplomats, their families, and international representatives.

EXAMPLE: The fragile diplomatic relations between the Philippines and China over overlapping claims in the West Philippine Sea. Under the blanket of diplomatic immunity, the Philippine envoy posted in China is protected from suit, arrest, or detention from any entity as an indirect form of retaliation against the Philippines for asserting its claim.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Sovereignty began in 16th-century Europe, defined by Bodin as supreme authority over a territory, later shaped by the Treaty of Westphalia’s principles of territorial integrity and non-interference. Enlightenment ideas introduced popular sovereignty, shifting power from monarchs to the people. Over time, absolute sovereignty gave way to limits set by international law and organizations like the United Nations, while still upholding state equality.

EXAMPLE: The Philippines vs. China case in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, where the Philippines challenged China's claims in the South China Sea under UNCLOS. The tribunal's 2016 ruling favored the Philippines, reaffirming its sovereign rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), although China has refused to recognize the ruling.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Deterrence, from the ideas of Beccaria and Bentham, is based on the belief that people are rational and crime can be prevented through certain, swift, and proportionate punishment. It evolved into general deterrence, which discourages the public, and specific deterrence, which prevents reoffending. Its use has ranged from public executions to modern policing and Cold War nuclear threats, though critics argue it is less effective when punishment is delayed, overly harsh, or when crimes are not rationally planned.

EXAMPLE: China has long pledged a No First Use policy for nuclear weapons, signaling it will not launch a preemptive strike. However, some doubt its credibility due to limited transparency over its arsenal. In contrast, the United States, Russia, and others reject such a pledge, believing the threat of a first strike strengthens deterrence.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: From customary law to codification and then to institutionalization.

Customary Law: Early practices and norms (diplomacy, war conduct, sovereignty) emerge out of necessity.

Codification: Customs formalized into treaties and conventions (e.g., Peace of Westphalia 1648).

Institutionalization: International organizations (League of Nations, UN) help enforce rules but effectiveness depends on alignment with powerful states’ interests

EXAMPLE: He discusses the establishment of the United Nations as a successor to the League, aiming to promote international cooperation and uphold international law, while acknowledging challenges in enforcement and the influence of powerful member states. In contemporary times, UN laws are considered the international law for which member-states must adhere to.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Multilateralism developed from early diplomatic gatherings like the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Concert of Europe, where states met to resolve issues collectively. It expanded in the 19th century through organizations such as the International Telegraph Union and the Universal Postal Union, which promoted technical cooperation. After World War I, the League of Nations formalized global collaboration, and following World War II, the creation of the United Nations, along with institutions like the Bretton Woods system and global trade bodies, strengthened multilateral governance in areas such as peacekeeping, human rights, trade, and development.

EXAMPLE: The United Nations, officially established in October 1945, is currently composed of 193 countries, and its role is to take action on the problems facing humanity. These include the maintenance of peace and security, sustainable development, human rights, humanitarian emergencies, gender equality, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
HOW IT DEVELOPED: Kissinger views sanctions as part of the broader toolkit of statecraft, emerging as a way for states to influence others without resorting to war.

Early use was ad hoc, tied to specific conflicts, and often unilateral; states used economic or political pressure to coerce compliance or punish behavior. During the Cold War, sanctions became more strategic and formalized, reflecting global power dynamics. By the mid-20th century, sanctions were increasingly codified through international institutions like the United Nations.

EXAMPLE: During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Egypt’s President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, prompting Britain and France to launch a military invasion. The United States opposed the intervention and applied economic pressure, threatening financial consequences to compel Britain and France to withdraw. The crisis ended without U.S. military involvement, demonstrating how sanctions can be used as a diplomatic tool to influence state behavior without resorting to war.

# data[].attributes.body
Berridge, G.R. and James, Alan. A Dictionary of Diplomacy. Palgrave, 2001.

Berridge, G.R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Plagrave, 2015.

Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society. Palgrave, 1977.

Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations. Vanguard Books, 1991.

Permanent Court of Arbitration, South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), Award of 12 July 2016.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982).

# data[].attributes.body
This is divided into four clusters to group related principles of diplomacy based on their function. Cluster 1 (Foundations of State Relations) covers core concepts that define a state’s rights, identity, and protections. Cluster 2 (Maintaining Stability) includes strategies that prevent conflict and preserve peace. Cluster 3 (Rules and Cooperation) focuses on legal frameworks and collaborative systems guiding international interaction. Lastly, Cluster 4 (Tools of Influence) contains methods states use to shape behavior and resolve tensions. Each principle is placed in a cluster according to its primary role in diplomatic relations.

# data[].attributes.body
Respect for sovereignty enables diplomacy; nationalism challenges and reshapes these foundations.

# data[].attributes.body
Deterrence and collective security are mechanisms to maintain balance and peace.

# data[].attributes.body
International law provides structure; multilateralism enforces it collectively.

# data[].attributes.body
Detente and sanctions are practical tools to manage conflicts and uphold stability.

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: Both principles pursue stability. Balance of Power assumes that equilibrium prevents dominance, while Collective Security assumes universal solidarity against aggression. Kissinger (1994) explains that the Concert of Europe after 1815 was an experiment in merging the two: states pledged collective defense but still maneuvered power balances.

CONFLICT: Balance of Power is realist and grounded in suspicion; states only act if it serves their interests. Collective Security is idealist and assumes trust, legality, and universality. This contradiction surfaced in the League of Nations, here Britain and France invoked balance over solidarity when appeasing Hitler, undermining the collective pledge.

INFLUENCE: Failures of Balance of Power (e.g., World War I) spurred advocacy of Collective Security (League, UN). Conversely, failures of Collective Security (League’s collapse, UN paralysis during the Cold War) reaffirmed the continuing role of Balance of Power. Kissinger (1994) stresses they cannot be separated; collective schemes only work when underpinned by real balance of forces.

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: All three principles aim to prevent war and preserve stability, but they differ in method.

Balance of Power prevents dominance through shifting alliances.

Collective Security creates universal commitments against aggression.

Deterrence (nuclear or conventional) relies on the threat of overwhelming retaliation to dissuade aggression.

INFLUENCE: Deterrence, once established, reshaped both balance and collective security: Nuclear weapons made total war less likely, forcing states into proxy wars and legal-collective maneuvers instead. Kissinger (1994) implied that while the balance or equilibrium and collective security remain important, modern stability is unimaginable without deterrence.

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: Sovereignty and Nationalism. Sovereignty provides the legal authority of a state over its territory and population, while nationalism gives it the emotional and political legitimacy from its people. As Morgenthau (1948) explains, nationalism transforms sovereignty into something more than a legal doctrine; therefore, it becomes tied to the people’s identity and will. Kissinger (1994) notes that in the 19th century, nationalism reinforced sovereignty as states sought recognition of their independent existence within the international system.

CONFLICT: Sovereignty vs. Nationalism. Nationalism may exceed the boundaries of sovereignty when it demands the expansion or unification of territories (e.g., irredentism in 19th–20th century Europe). Kissinger emphasizes that sovereignty is meant to stabilize borders, while nationalism often destabilizes them by demanding “self-determination” beyond established states.

INFLUENCE:

Sovereignty on Nationalism. Sovereignty formalizes the political framework in which nationalism can operate. Without recognized sovereignty, nationalist movements remain insurgent or revolutionary (e.g., pre-independence colonies).

Nationalism on Sovereignty. Nationalism often reshapes sovereignty, pushing for new states (e.g., post-WWI Europe with the collapse of empires, Wilson’s principle of self-determination)

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: Sovereignty and Diplomatic Immunity. Diplomatic immunity is a practical mechanism for states to interact while respecting each other’s sovereignty. Immunity as defined is not about privileging individuals but ensuring that state representatives can act without interference, thereby upholding sovereign equality in diplomacy.

INFLUENCE:

Sovereignty on Diplomatic Immunity. Sovereignty ensures that diplomatic immunity is reciprocally respected and that states recognize each other as equal and allow representatives to function under protection.

# data[].attributes.body
Diplomatic Immunity on Sovereignty and Nationalism. Immunity tempers nationalism by forcing states to adhere to international conventions despite domestic anger. For example, even during nationalist protests, most states avoid officially violating diplomatic immunity to protect their sovereign diplomats abroad.

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: Nationalism and Diplomatic Immunity. Nationalist movements often challenge diplomatic immunity in times of domestic unrest. For example, during revolutionary periods (e.g., the Iranian hostage crisis, 1979), nationalist fervor clashed with international norms of immunity. This shows how nationalism sometimes undermines the universality of diplomatic immunity when sovereignty is perceived as violated by foreign presence.

CONFLICT: Nationalism vs. Diplomatic Immunity. Nationalist uprisings often disregard immunity when foreign diplomats are associated with oppression or interference. Example: The Boxer Rebellion in China (1900), where nationalist groups attacked foreign missionaries, rejecting both sovereignty agreements imposed by colonial powers and the immunities of foreign diplomats.

INFLUENCE: Nationalism on Diplomatic Immunity. Nationalism may weaken the observance of immunity in moments of crisis but also strengthens it when states demand that their own diplomats be respected abroad (reciprocity principle).

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: International law and multilateralism are deeply intertwined. International law provides the legal framework within which states interact, while multilateralism is the institutional practice of states collectively engaging to enforce, negotiate, and expand such legal norms. For example, the United Nations Charter (1945) codified principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and collective security, but its effectiveness relies on multilateral institutions like the UN General Assembly and Security Council (Kissinger, 1994).

CONFLICT: Despite their interdependence, international law and multilateralism can come into conflict:

Selective Application of Law – Powerful states may bypass international law when it clashes with their national interest (e.g., the problem with the West Philippine Sea, Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, applying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ruled in favor of the Philippines. Despite this ruling, China rejected the decision, insisting on bilateral negotiations and continuing its island-building and military presence. ASEAN, which operates on consensus-based multilateralism, has struggled to enforce collective action, as some member-states are economically dependent on China.). This creates tension between the universality of law and the politics of multilateralism.

Multilateral Gridlock – Multilateral institutions often struggle to enforce international law due to consensus-based decision-making (e.g., Security Council vetoes like the case of US using its veto power to protect Israel). This weakens the legitimacy of both law and institution.

INFLUENCE:

International Law on Multilateralism: Law shapes the scope and legitimacy of multilateral organizations. For example, the Rome Statute (1998) established the International Criminal Court (ICC), embedding legal norms of human rights and accountability into the multilateral system.

Multilateralism on International Law: Conversely, multilateral platforms expand, reinterpret, or weaken law. Trade law (e.g., WTO agreements) shows how collective negotiation reshapes legal principles like non-discrimination into binding economic rules.

Kissinger (1994) emphasizes that the balance between law and multilateralism reflects the underlying distribution of power. For example, after WWII, the U.S. championed both international law and multilateralism to create an order aligned with its interests. Thus, their influence is dialectical: law legitimizes institutions, and institutions adapt law to political realities.

# data[].attributes.body
CONNECTION: Sanctions and détente are both tools of international relations that lie on a spectrum between coercion and conciliation.

Sanctions are punitive, aiming to pressure states into compliance by restricting economic, political, or military resources.

Détente (literally "relaxation of tensions") is the opposite tool, seeking engagement, dialogue, and reduced hostility.

They are connected because both are responses to international crises and conflicts, but they operate with different strategies or approaches,sanctions through pressure, détente through accommodation.

CONFLICT: Despite this complementarity, sanctions and détente often clash:

Sanctions emphasize confrontation and punishment, while détente seeks compromise and trust-building.
For instance, during the Cold War, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the Soviet Union (e.g., after the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979) while also pursuing arms control talks, which is truly a contradictory mix that undermined credibility.

Mixed Signaling – When both are pursued simultaneously, states may perceive sanctions as insincere, weakening the effects of détente.

A modern example is U.S. and Iran relations: while negotiations on the nuclear deal (JCPOA, 2015) represented détente, concurrent U.S. sanctions weakened Iranian trust, eventually contributing to the deal’s collapse.

INFLUENCE: Sanctions and détente influence each other in cyclical ways:

Sanctions as Prelude to Détente – Pressure from sanctions can force states to the negotiating table, where détente can occur.

Failure of One Weakens the Other – If sanctions fail, they can harden positions and make détente impossible. Likewise, if détente collapses, sanctions are often re-imposed more severely (e.g., U.S.–Russia relations after Crimea 2014).

# data[].attributes.body
CONFLICT: Deterrence vs. Collective Security. Deterrence depends on credible unilateral threats (nuclear retaliation), whereas collective security rests on multilateral decision-making. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) revealed this: U.S. deterrence worked, but collective UN processes lagged.

# data[].attributes.body
CONFLICT: Deterrence vs. Balance of Power. Classical balance requires fluid alliances, but nuclear deterrence creates rigid bipolar blocs. Kissinger (1994) notes that nuclear deterrence “froze” balance of power into stalemate, reducing flexibility.