Sports Diplomacy. Michał Marcin Kobierecki

Boykoff, Power Games: A Political History of the Olympics (London: Verso, 2016).

      22. Xu, Olympic Dreams; Yafeng Xia, Negotiating with the Enemy: U.S.—China Talks during the Cold War, 1949–1972 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006); Nicholas Griffin, Ping-Pong Diplomacy: The Secret History behind the Game that Changed the World (New York: Skyhorse, 2014).

      23. Beata Surmacz, Ewolucja współczesnej dyplomacji: Aktorzy, struktury, funkcje [Evolution of Contemporary Diplomacy: Actors, Structures and Functions] (Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS, 2015), 375.

      24. Barrie Houlihan and Jinming Zheng, “Small States: Sport and Politics at the Margin,” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 7, no. 3 (2014): 330.

      25. Joseph S. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004), 5.

      26. Joseph S. Nye, “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616 (2008): 95.

      27. Teresa Łoś-Nowak, Stosunki międzynarodowe: Teorie-systemy-uczestnicy [International Relations: Theories-Systems-Participants] (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 2006), 74.

      28. Scott Burchill, “Liberalizm” [Liberalism], in Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych [Theories of International Relations], ed. Scott Burchill, Richard Devetak, Andrew Linklater, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True (Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza, 2006), 59; Judit Trunkos and Bob Heere, “Sport Diplomacy: A Review of How Sports Can Be Used to Improve International Relationships,” in Case Studies in Sport Diplomacy, ed. Craig Esherick, Robert E. Baker, Steven Jackson, and Michael Sam (Morgantown: FiT Publishing: 2017), 2.

      29. Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp, Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century, Report no. 1 (The Hague: Clingendael, 2012), 11.

      30. Aaron Beacom, International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement: The New Mediators (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012), 27.

      31. Brian Hocking, “Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Foundations, Forms, Functions and Frustrations,” in Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities, ed. Jovan Kurbalija and Valentin Katrandjiev (Malta–Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2006), 13, 17.

      32. R. S. Zaharna, “Network Purpose, Network Design: Dimensions of Network and Collaborative Public Diplomacy,” in Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift, ed. R. S. Zaharna, Amelia Arsenault, and Ali Fisher (New York: Routledge 2013), 175.

      33. Beacom, International Diplomacy, 28.

Chapter 1

       Connotation of the Category “Sports Diplomacy”

      From a Colloquial Overview to a Conceptualization Attempt

      SPORT AND DIPLOMACY

      “Sports diplomacy” as a term is about combining sport and diplomacy. According to J. Simon Rofe, it should instead be called “sport and diplomacy” to underline a two-way reliance between both categories.¹ Sports diplomacy is often described as a form of specification of public diplomacy. However, if the diplomacy of international sports organizations is considered, then their activity and subjectivity in the sphere of diplomacy refer rather to a more traditional perception of diplomacy.

      Traditional approaches to diplomacy describe it as the management of interstate relations.² Hans Morgenthau defined diplomacy as an instrument of securing peace aimed to foster national interest with the use of peaceful means.³ Morgenthau distinguished ministries of foreign affairs and diplomatic representatives sent to other states by these ministries as the only organized instruments of diplomacy.⁴ The state-centric approach to diplomacy has also been expressed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961.⁵ In the main current of international relations diplomacy has been recognized most of all in the context of the activity of states, what can be derived from a generally state-centric approach of this field of study.⁶ Such an attitude toward diplomacy is characterized by bounding diplomacy with sovereignty and “high politics” where diplomats are regarded as people with appropriate predispositions and capabilities.⁷

      Even though diplomacy traditionally was considered to be exercised exclusively by governments, nowadays authors tend to support the view that it also refers to processes of mediation and negotiation which are not limited to sovereign states.⁸ James Der Derian claimed that diplomacy is a mediation between mutually estranged individuals, groups, and subjects.⁹ Therefore, if we accept that the contemporary world is characterized by the diffusion of state authority into other actors, the concept of state diplomacy as the only medium of affecting international relations is contested.¹⁰

      The changing nature of diplomacy in the context of the Cold War was noticed already in the 1960s by Harold Nicolson.¹¹ It can be assumed, that together with the evolution of contemporary international relations, non-state actors found their place within diplomacy. For example, NGOs developed a diversity of relations with states.¹² The diplomacy is undergoing changes and its actors and locations are multiplicated. Noé Cornago referred to the process of pluralization of diplomacy and claimed that nowadays there are diplomacies rather than diplomacy.¹³

      Diplomacy is evolving and becoming increasingly open, with network forms and processes challenging previous hierarchical structures. These networks include several actors apart from governments, often not determined by national boundaries.¹⁴ Rebecca Adler-Nissen apart from traditional actors of diplomacy mentioned subjects such as subnational and regional authorities, interstate organizations, multinational corporations, celebrities, and nongovernmental organizations.¹⁵ If non-state diplomatic actors are considered, nongovernmental organizations unattached to any territory (such as sports organizations like the International Olympic Committee and international federations) and transnational corporations should be mentioned.¹⁶ The new model of international relations assumes that states remain their key actors but are not the only ones.¹⁷ Their role comparing to other actors diminishes owing to globalization and growing interdependencies.¹⁸ It is connected to the concept of conventional anomalies, which refers to non-state subjects with established diplomatic standing.¹⁹

      The issue relates to polylateralism—a concept of the third dimension of diplomacy besides bilateral and multilateral. It embraces relations between states (including groups of states and intergovernmental organizations) and non-state subjects. According to this approach, non-state actors develop normal diplomatic relations that include reporting, communication, negotiation, and representation without mutual recognition of sovereignty.²⁰ Such theoretical approaches allow including activities of international sports actors into the analysis of contemporary diplomacy. Accordingly, Geoffrey Wiseman credited International Olympic Committee as an actor of transnational civil society that works for nonprofit and supports legitimate sociopolitical causes across international borders and engages in diplomatic interactions.²¹

      Considerations concerning contemporary diplomacy include a concept of new diplomacy that assumes states giving in to non-state actors owing to fragmentation of diplomatic institutions and the tendency that diplomacy is becoming more public and dependent on grassroots mobilization. New diplomacy assumes that in some spheres, official politics remains superior, while in others “new diplomats” compete with governments and compensate their inactivity.²² It also refers to sports diplomacy pursued beyond governments’ initiative and control, although in their interest. The diplomacy of transnational sports organizations is different since their actions do not compensate states’ passivity. It stems from their position and assets that make governments want to engage in diplomatic processes with them.

      The concept of corporate diplomacy is also useful in explaining the phenomenon of sports diplomacy. It assumes that in the times of neoliberal globalization even though states remained the key subjects of international relations, the influence has shifted from