John Kelly, and Jung Woo Lee (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 28–38.
16. Diplomatic Games: Sport, Statecraft, and International Relations since 1945, ed. Heather L. Dichter and Andrew L. Johns (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky: 2014).
17. Case Studies in Sport Diplomacy, ed. Craig Esherick, Robert E. Baker, Steven Jackson, and Michael Sam (Morgantown: FiT Publishing: 2017).
18. Murray, Sports Diplomacy: Origins, 6.
19. Sport and Diplomacy: Games within Games, ed. J. Simon Rofe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018).
20. Rofe, “Sport and Diplomacy: A Global,” 212–230; Black and Peacock, “Sport,” 708–726; James Pamment, “Rethinking Diplomatic and Development Outcomes Through Sport: Toward a Participatory Paradigm of Multi-Stakeholder Diplomacy,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 2 (2016): 231–250; Murray and Pigman, “Mapping,” 1098–1118; Murray, “The Two Halves,” 576–592.
21. Guoqi Xu, Olympic Dreams: China and Sports 1895–2008 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Fan Hong and Zhouxiang Lu, The Politicisation of Sport in Modern China: Communists and Champions (London: Routledge, 2013); Owning the Olympics: Narratives of the New China, ed. Monroe E. Price and Daniel Dayan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008); The Beijing Olympics: Promoting China: Soft and Hard Power in Global Politics, ed. Kevin Caffrey (London: Routledge, 2011); Victor D. Cha, Beyond the Final Score: The Politics of Sport in Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009); The Global Impact of Olympic Media at London 2012, ed. Andrew C. Billings and Marie C. Hardin (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015); Leveraging Legacies from Sports Mega-Events: Concepts and Cases, ed. Jonathan Grix (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2014); The Sochi Predicament: Contexts, Characteristics and Challenges of the Olympic Winter Games in 2014, ed. Bo Petersson and Karina Vamling (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2014); Jules 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.
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
