| Annotation |
The article is devoted to the practice of using methods of informal expert
diplomacy in peace processes. The relevance of the problem is due to the decline
in the potential of traditional diplomacy in the current geopolitical turbulence and the
protracted nature of unresolved conflicts in the post-Soviet space. The experience
of using alternative tools for establishing and maintaining contacts at the level of
experts, representatives of NGOs and the academic community of the parties,
as well as the interweaving of official and auxiliary diplomacy in the conditions of
the so-called “new internationality” requires rethinking. The purpose of the article,
which consists in summarizing the experience of “second and one-and-a-half track”
diplomacy in post-Soviet conflicts and identifying the potential of such activities
in the context of peace processes, predetermined the tasks: to analyze the world
practice of transprofessionalization of diplomacy, to give an overview of the available theoretical literature, to identify the importance of expert diplomacy in the inter-Tajik
settlement and the features of expert participation in confidence-building measures
in the Georgian-the Abkhaz conflict, as well as Azerbaijani-Armenian and Moldovan-
Transdniestrian relations. The object of the study is informal diplomacy. The subject is
the experience of transprofessionalization of diplomacy in a number of conflict cases
of the post-Soviet space. Methodology and methods of research are as follows: to
achieve the objectives of the study, a systematic approach is applied, which has
allowed a comprehensive analysis of the accumulated practice of involving experts
in conflict resolution processes, as well as general scientific methods of comparative
analysis and generalization. It is concluded that although “expert diplomacyˮ is not
an alternative to the official one and in this regard cannot replace the classical tools
traditionally used by diplomats, the auxiliary and stabilizing potential of “diplomacy of
all tracks” is quite high. |
| Key words |
conflict resolution, negotiationprocess, multi-track diplomacy,diplomacy of the “secondtrack”, diplomacy of the “oneand a half track”, expertgroups, working groups,expert diplomacy, peaceprocess, expert seminars |
| References |
1. Bogatyreva O. Humanitarian diplomacy. Modern concepts and approaches. International processes,
no. 20, pp. 166–191, 2022. (In Rus.)
2. Genyush S. Expert diplomacy: civil society in the service of foreign policy. Contours of global
transformations: politics, economics, law, no. 5, pp. 14–24, 2012. (In Rus.)
3. Dolinsky A. Discourse on public diplomacy. International processes, vol. 9, no. 1. pp. 63–73, 2011. (In
Rus.)
4. Kovba D. M. The humanitarian dimension of diplomacy: the problem of categorization and analysis.
Bulletin of the KRSU, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 169–174, 2020. (In Rus.)
5. Lebedeva M. M. Opportunities and limitations of public diplomacy as a social and humanitarian resource
in conflict prevention and resolution. Settlement of modern international conflicts: problems, tools, methods:
collection of articles. Moscow: Rusience, 2020. (In Rus.)
6. Lebedeva M. M. Public diplomacy in conflict resolution. International processes, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 45–
56, 2015. (In Rus.)
7. Lebedeva M. M., Ustinova M. I. Humanitarian and social issues in the UN Security Council // Bulletin of
International Organizations. 2020. Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 135-154. (In Rus.)
8. Nikitin A. I., Bolgova I. V., Nikitina Yu. A. Activities of non-governmental organizations for the settlement
of ethnopolitical conflicts in the post-Soviet space. Quaestio Rossica, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 428–441, 2020. (In Rus.)
9. Pentegova A.V. The concept of humanitarian cooperation in modern the system of international relations.
Bulletin of the Trans-Baikal State University, no. 4, pp. 54–60, 2019. (In Rus.)
10. Podberezkin A. I., Zhukov A.V. Public diplomacy in the power confrontation of civilizations. Bulletin of
MGIMO University, no. 6, pp. 106–116, 2015. (In Rus.)
11. Saunders G. Sustainable dialogue in conflicts. Transformations and changes. Moscow: Aspect Press,
2019. (In Rus.)
12. Torkunov A. Diplomacy of the academic community: past and present. World economy and international
relations, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 22–28. (In Rus.)
13. Sharafieva O. H. Inter-Tajik negotiations as an example of the settlement of an internal conflict. Bulletin
of Tomsk State University, no. 367, pp. 84–91, 2013. (In Rus.)
14. Shevchuk N. V. Diplomacy in the context of the “new internationality”. Roscongress. Web. 18.07.2023.
https://roscongress.org/materials/diplomatiya-v-usloviyakh-novoy-mezhdunarodnosti. (In Rus.)
15. Shevchuk N. V. Tactics of small steps in conflict resolution. The case of Transnistria. International
processes, no. 20, pp. 38–54, 2022. (In Rus.)
16. Diamond L., McDonald J. W. Multi-track diplomacy: A systems approach to peace. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 1996. (In Eng.)
17. Global Diplomacy. An Introduction to Theory and Practice Paris: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. (In Eng.)
18. Spies Y. K. Polylateral Diplomacy: Diplomacy as Public-Private Collaboration. Global South
Perspectives on Diplomacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. (In Eng.) |
