Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Summit Diplomacy: High-Level Meeting or Courtesy Call? A Response to John Young

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

This essay is written in response to John Young's article in issue 1:3 of this journal, 'A Case Study in Summitry: The Experience of Britain's Edward Heath, 1979-1974', which chronicles the period's face-to-face meetings between heads of government. In his analysis, Young uses the definition of summitry that I set out in my 1996 book Diplomacy at the Highest Level: The Evolution of International Summitry. And yet in applying this definition of summitry as he does, he demonstrates the limitations of both this definition and indeed this approach to the study of diplomatic history in general.

This article presents a critique of Young's use of summitry as a tool for understanding the diplomacy of the Heath administration in particular and diplomatic studies in general. It argues that the use of summitry in this way is a distorting lens through which to approach such an analysis. The article argues that Young's approach both overprivileges actual meetings as opposed to other executive involvement in diplomacy and downplays more significant activities, which fall outside this definition. If casual courtesy visits are to be included as summits, there is clearly something wrong with the definition being used. If this definition were to stand, then the term 'summit' and the use of summitry as a device for understanding diplomatic activity would be rendered meaningless. The article ends by suggesting new ways of defining summitry and pointing to the need for new research in this area.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Political Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    The Hague Journal of Diplomacy — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation