ABSTRACT
The classic works on the history of diplomatic practice (and even more so, of the works produced by the exponents of the 'traditionalist' school in International Relations) seem to espouse a teleological view of diplomacy: the idea that we have reached, after a long-drawn-out but continuous development, the best and final form of diplomacy. Suggesting that there was 'a distinct upward curve of progress' 1 in the development of diplomatic theory, Harold Nicolson in his main work aimed 'to concentrate upon the continuity of development rather than upon the sudden spurts and long retardations by which it has been marked'. 2 This kind of approach has, over the past decades, led to many of 'the dynamic and dispersed forces behind the formation of diplomacy which defined purposes often antithetical to the traditional teleology' 3 to be left unexplored.
