4. Specify the factors that affected the importance of bilateral embassy.

The resident embassy is the heart of the diplomatic process; it represents the sovereign state, the principal actor in international affairs— even while it makes room to accommodate diverse non-state actors, at home and abroad. The embassy is the field outpost of the foreign ministry, its eyes-and-ears on foreign terrain, advising all government branches on developments important to the home country; in normal circumstances, it is the intermediary for two-way communication between states (we note below the exceptions). Some diplomacy theorists argue that thanks to several factors, the bilateral embassy (though not the multilateral counterpart) has lost much of its relevance. Some writing of the 1990s reflected these ideas. The factors cited include the following:

The greater role played by heads of government in foreign affairs, with their offices more or less usurping the high policy functions of the MFA.

The autonomous role of the functional or line ministries and the international negotiations carried out by them.

Subject plurality, where issues of high politics are less salient than low-diplomacy issues of economics, environment, and social affairs, among others.

The activities of the non-state actors, including the media, business chambers, think tanks, academia, parliaments, and civil society, who sometimes moved much ahead of official agencies in their external contacts or set the agenda.

A decline in the high reputation that foreign ministries had enjoyed in the past.

5. . Explain the meaning of the expression 'protocol is a lubricant of international relations'

In international affairs, protocol facilitates the intercultural encounter, laying down a near-uniform code of conduct and norms that each participant willingly accepts, even while within a broad frame, individual countries retain their particular styles, even idiosyncrasies. Protocol is predicated on equal treatment for all those that are of comparable status; yet it allows for uniqueness. It leaves room for special gestures, and even creativity, as we see below. Countries are free to practice their own styles, on the condition of a common minimum standard, plus an assurance that foreign official entities coming into contact receive similar treatment.

6. Identify the main characteristics of the effective diplomacy

Many MFAs have worked out proactive methods for their international policy, but there remain foreign ministries that do not methodically consider the range of external options available or learn from the good exemplars. Effective diplomacy is not more expensive when compared with its deprived cousin, what one may call routine or ‘business as usual’ diplomacy; it is just better organized. For any country, the international policy goal is simple: first, work out the best foreign policy options that are available to the nation, in harmony with resources, capacity, external interests and obligations, and the available opportunities. Second, establish the delivery mechanism for this policy, through its diplomacy structures, and then operate this optimally. The first task varies from country to country and depends on factors such as legacy, capabilities, resource endowment, and external ambitions. The second involves a methodology that is more or less the same for all, with relatively minor variations. It is this second set of working methods that we consider here under the rubric of diplomatic studies. It is an observed paradox that outside of North America and Europe, this is an under-studied subject, even in an advanced country such as Japan, even though the requirement is uniform; the rather few institutes of diplomatic studies that obtain in European universities work mainly on diplomatic history or elements of theory, and few among them look to the practice of diplomacy.

That is different from the diplomatic academies that train officials of foreign ministries and others; some of them do not enjoy needed links with their own universities and think tanks. The cardinal task of the modern foreign ministry is the management of complex and crisscrossing relationships, bilateral, regional and international; across the range of subjects that crowd today’s international dialogue.