THE STATE PROTOCOL AS INSTRUMENT FOR ESTABLISHING A MULTILATERAL INTERSTATE DIALOGUE: SYMBOLIC ASPECT
Keywords:state protocol, public administration, political communication, symbol, interstate dialogue.
AbstractThe specificity of state protocol and ceremony as a symbolic structure of policy and component of public administration are defined. Been defined on this basis, the role and place of state protocol and ceremony in the system of political communication. The state protocol is the form that reflect any foreign policy action. From one side it’s structure, rules and norms are based on the principle of respecting for the state’s symbols («principle of international politeness»). Seniority principle is another important aspect of state protocol logic. Both of these principles give us a perfect noninstitutionalized instrument of political influence from state protocol. Symbolization of current geopolitical hierarchy and it’s separation from any conflict situations are that powerful mechanism of state protocol, which describes in this article. State protocol in foreign policy is a complex method based on huge amount of symbolic practices, which are using for demonstration of respect to/for another states, without reputational risks. State protocol is a semiotic system. It could be used for resolving problems in tactical and strategical plan of foreign policy. State protocol is a semiotic system. It could be used for resolving problems in tactical and strategical plan of foreign policy. So, state protocol could be described not only as diplomatically instrument, but, also as a leading resource in recognition of state sovereignty and protection of its positions among another states in international arena. In the same time, we couldn't describe state protocol as a cosmopolitican phenomenon, ignoring it’s national context. Behavioral models that were formed by national ethical traditions and ceremonials, give us possibilities to evaluate and enrich modern state protocol practice. That guarantees to us future interstate dialogue in the context of fast transformation of geopolitical architecture nowadays.
Burke, K. (1996). Language as Symbolic Action. Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen, A. A. (1989). Future Directions in Television News Research. American Behavioral Scientist, (33), 135–268.
Deutsch, K. W. (1993). The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control. London: Free Press of Glencoe.
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité Vol I: La Volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.
Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Shuhrkamp.
Lasswell, H. D. (1965). The language of power. In Harold D. Lasswell, Nathan Leites, and Associates, Language of politics studies in quantitative semantics, 3-19, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pye, L. W. (1987). Political Communication. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions, 437–451, Oxford – New York.
Schwartzenberg, R.-G. (1998). Sociologie politique. Paris: Éditions Montchrestien.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Буданцев Юрий П. (1979). В контексте жизни: Системный подход и массовая коммуникация. Москва: Мысль. / Budantsev, Y. P. (1979). V kontekste zhizni: Sistemnyiy podhod i massovaya kommunikatsiya. Moskva: Myisl.