Document Type : Original Article
Author
Assistant Professor of Politics and International Relations, Institute for Social and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/dpiq.2026.552884.1056
Abstract
Introduction
The contemporary international system is characterized by increasing complexity. In global political trends, public diplomacy—defined as efforts to influence foreign public opinion to gain support for strategic objectives—has emerged as a strategic priority among political actors. States can extend their power beyond national borders through public diplomacy. What distinguishes public diplomacy from formal state-centered diplomacy is its diverse range of tools: the agency of both state and non-state actors, emerging technologies, and the blurring of boundaries between domestic and foreign spheres.
Despite the growing practical importance of public diplomacy, scholars have not developed systematic theoretical research in this field. The challenges of public diplomacy are increasingly influenced by mass communication studies, politics, and international relations. The historical and state-centric orientation of public diplomacy research, competing conceptual readings, and its frequent reduction to soft power represent major theoretical weaknesses hindering coherent theoretical and methodological approaches.
The central question is: what theoretical approach can be employed to bring coherence to public diplomacy studies? Given that new demands are shaped by both communication studies and international relations; this research argues that applying insights from these fields can provide a robust theoretical foundation. By analyzing public diplomacy within the main theories of international relations, it becomes possible to benefit from their explanatory power, laying groundwork for independent theorizing.
Literature Review
Over the past two decades, public diplomacy has become a prominent area in foreign policy literature. Despite significant growth in empirical studies, the field continues to lack theoretical coherence. Early literature was historical and state-centric, focused primarily on the U.S. experience during the Cold War. Following 9/11 and the rise of digital media, public diplomacy became critical to U.S. foreign policy. While these studies explained practical developments, they contributed limitedly to generalizable analytical frameworks.
With globalization and technological transformation, research has moved toward understanding public diplomacy as a multi-actor, networked phenomenon. The role of NGOs, civil society, and digital media in shaping international narratives has become prominent. However, this empirical expansion has been accompanied by conceptual overlap with public relations, nation branding, propaganda, strategic communication, and soft power—leading to conceptual dispersion rather than theoretical deepening.
Public diplomacy has been examined across various topics including foreign policy, peace, war, humanitarian affairs and multinational corporations.
Meta-analytical studies situate public diplomacy at the intersection of two major traditions: political science/international relations and communication sciences. Sevin, Metzgar, and Hayden (2019) found that only 14% of 354 articles employed an international relations theoretical framework—over 85% lacked explicit theory or relied solely on instrumental communication models. Ki, Pasadeos, and Ertem-Eray (2021) confirm that while convergence has been attempted, it has not produced an integrated framework. The main gap lies not in empirical data but in the absence of a "dominant theoretical paradigm." This study addresses this gap through analytical reformulation of public diplomacy within the dominant paradigms of international relations.
Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative, descriptive approach based on library and documentary research. The methodological framework is "conceptual-comparative analysis," conducted at two levels. First, conceptual analysis draws on Markusen's framework and meta-analytical studies to examine public diplomacy concepts and overlaps with adjacent concepts. Second, comparative-explanatory analysis systematically examines the explanatory capacities of realism, liberalism, and constructivism based on four criteria: primary objectives, central actors, influence mechanisms, and the logic of power. The unit of analysis is "theoretical paradigms of international relations" as interpretive frameworks shaping the conceptualization of public diplomacy.
Results and Discussion
Public diplomacy, aimed at influencing foreign perceptions, is rooted in engaging international audiences, fostering mutual understanding, and building relationships to advance national interests, promote cultural exchange, and reduce conflict. Traditional diplomacy alone is insufficient; public diplomacy complements it by engaging citizens, civil society, and non-state actors. However, its historical and state-centric orientation, competing readings, and reduction to soft power represent major theoretical weaknesses.
Several fields—political science, international relations, and communication sciences (public opinion, media, nation branding, public relations) possess potential to contribute to theoretical knowledge. Given that the public diplomacy literature lacks the necessary theoretical infrastructure, examining it within these theoretical approaches and drawing analytical distinctions can both clarify its pragmatic orientation and develop it away from conceptual disputes, enabling comparative and integrated studies and their demarcation from one another. Therefore, to fill existing theoretical gaps, studying diplomacy within these two approaches can be helpful and effective in enriching theoretical discussions of public diplomacy. In this study, public diplomacy is examined under the dominant theoretical paradigms of international relations.
Within realism, public diplomacy is a tactical tool serving power, security, and national interests—strengthening competitive position in the anarchic system. Case studies of Russia and NATO demonstrate relative alignment with realist logic; however, evidence (e.g., the $148 million Afghanistan project) proves that financial investment alone does not guarantee national interests. Effectiveness depends on "target audience perception" and "message alignment with identity contexts."
Within liberalism, public diplomacy can pave the way for cooperation in trade, environment, science, and security by creating mutual understanding and reducing tensions. It promotes democracy and liberal values through programs such as Fulbright, the British Council, and Rossotrudnichestvo—mechanisms for creating institutional interdependence and reducing conflict through elite networking.
The constructivist approach has the greatest overlap with public diplomacy. Identity, culture, and social norms are central. Public diplomacy addresses how public attitudes shape foreign policy beyond traditional diplomacy—shaping foreign citizens' opinions, group cooperation, and intercultural communication. The meaning of public diplomacy is determined by the identity of actors and their roles. Constructivists view diplomacy as promoting shared meanings to develop intersubjective knowledge. Empirical evidence from Russia demonstrates that "national identity" transformation can reshape public diplomacy, but norm internalization remains gradual and contingent upon "discursive barriers". Surveys on Russia's image in Eastern Europe indicate that despite Moscow's extensive public diplomacy efforts in the 2020s, the redefinition of Russia's identity as "defender of traditional values" has not received uniform responses—while this narrative gained relative traction in Serbia and Hungary, it continues to face discursive resistance rooted in historical memory in the Baltic states.
These findings confirm the core constructivist claim: the "reception" of public diplomacy depends less on message quality than on "alignment of collective identities between sender and receiver." Thus, the effectiveness of public diplomacy in any national context requires careful analysis of the identity and discursive backgrounds of target audiences. Proponents of constructivism emphasize that each state has its own understanding of the world, distinct from other cultures and values, and that in this diversity lies the basis for creating a sustainable world order. The main condition is the willingness to understand "others" without denying their right to maintain their own identity—an understanding achievable through public diplomacy.
By explaining public diplomacy within the main theories of international relations, it becomes clear that it can benefit from their explanatory power in relevant domains. Findings indicate that none of the three paradigms alone is sufficient to explain public diplomacy; rather, its effectiveness simultaneously depends on strategic calculations and national interests (realism), institutional networking and cooperation (liberalism), and identity and discursive alignment (constructivism). What is recognized in practice as "successful public diplomacy" results from the complex interaction of these three logics. This underscores the necessity of multi-paradigmatic and integrative research in future public diplomacy studies.
Conclusion
With increasing complexity, public diplomacy has emerged as a strategic priority for influencing foreign public opinion. Driven by 21st-century transformations- environmental issues, climate change, terrorism, health, human rights- alongside the rising role of diverse transnational and non-state actors and expanding communication technologies, public diplomacy has gained growing attention.
Despite pragmatic use, systematic theoretical research remains absent. To avoid conceptual fuzziness, this study proposed explaining public diplomacy within two broad approaches-communication sciences and international relations- and presented a theoretical explanation within the main theories of international relations. The evidence examined demonstrates that each of the three paradigms illuminates a layer of reality. What is recognized as "successful public diplomacy" results from the complex interaction of three logics: strategic calculations (realism), institutional networking (liberalism), and identity alignment (constructivism). This finding underscores the necessity of multi-paradigmatic research in future studies, enabling researchers to move beyond descriptive accumulation toward comparative and causal analysis based on generalizable theoretical frameworks.
Keywords
Subjects
