Comparative Analysis of Diplomatic Paradigms: Strategic Cooperation, Systemic Complexity, and Confrontational Approaches

Co-created by the Catalyzer Think Tank divergent thinking and Gemini Deep Research tool. 

Introduction

Diplomacy, the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states or organizations, stands as a cornerstone of international relations. It encompasses a vast spectrum of activities, from routine consular functions to high-stakes crisis management and the intricate weaving of global governance structures. The manner in which states engage with one another diplomatically, however, is far from uniform. It is shaped by underlying theoretical assumptions about the nature of the international system, the motivations of actors, and the most effective means of achieving national objectives. This diversity gives rise to a fundamental tension within the practice and study of diplomacy: a tension between approaches that emphasize cooperation, strategic calculation, and a systemic understanding of interactions, versus those that prioritize unilateral advantage, view international relations through a zero-sum lens, and readily employ confrontational tactics.

This report undertakes an expert-level comparative analysis of these divergent diplomatic paradigms. It contrasts the assumptions, methodologies, objectives, and typical outcomes associated with cooperative, strategic, and systemic frameworks – specifically examining Game Theory, Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory, established International Relations (IR) theories (Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism), and related practices like negotiation theory and multilateralism – against the confrontational, zero-sum, or “winner-take-all” approaches to diplomacy. The latter will be illustrated through analysis of the diplomatic styles attributed to historical figures such as Adolf Hitler and contemporary leaders like Donald Trump, focusing on documented policies and actions as interpreted through scholarly analysis. The report will delve into the definitions and applications of each approach, evaluate their respective strengths, weaknesses, risks, and limitations, and critically examine the speculative connection between Complex Adaptive Systems and hyperbolic geometry within diplomatic theory. Ultimately, this analysis aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the implications these different diplomatic paradigms hold for conflict resolution, international cooperation, national security, and global stability in the contemporary world.

Section 1: Cooperative, Strategic, and Systemic Approaches to Diplomacy

This section explores diplomatic approaches grounded in strategic calculation, systemic understanding, and the potential for cooperation. These frameworks, while diverse, generally move beyond simple power politics to incorporate rationality, complexity, interdependence, and normative considerations.

1.1 Game Theory: Rationality and Strategy in Interaction

Definition and Core Concepts: Game theory provides a formal framework for analyzing strategic interactions where the outcome for each participant depends on the choices made by all involved.1 Originating with the study of two-person zero-sum games – scenarios where one player’s gain directly corresponds to the other’s loss – it expanded significantly in the mid-20th century to encompass non-zero-sum games, where mutual gains or losses are possible.1 It is now a broad methodology used across social sciences, economics, political science, systems science, and computer science to model the behavior of rational decision-makers.1

Key concepts underpin game-theoretic analysis. ‘Players’ are the decision-making entities (e.g., states, leaders, organizations). ‘Strategies’ represent the possible actions each player can take. ‘Payoffs’ quantify the value or utility each player associates with each possible outcome resulting from the combination of strategies chosen.1 A central, though often debated, assumption is that players act rationally, meaning they choose strategies to maximize their expected payoffs given their beliefs about other players’ actions.1 Analysis often focuses on identifying ‘equilibria,’ stable outcomes where no player has a unilateral incentive to change their strategy. The most famous is the Nash equilibrium, where each player’s strategy is the best response to the strategies chosen by the others.1 Game theory finds extensive application in modeling economic competition (auctions, bargaining, oligopolies), business procurement strategies, and political processes like voting systems, fair division, and war bargaining.1

The Minimax/Maximin Principle: Within the context of zero-sum games, the minimax (or maximin, depending on perspective) principle offers a foundational decision rule.1 It advises players on how to act when facing an opponent whose interests are diametrically opposed. The core idea is to anticipate the worst possible outcome an opponent can inflict and choose the strategy that makes this worst outcome as favorable as possible.1

From the perspective of minimizing potential losses (minimax), a player considers all opponent strategies for each of their own potential moves. They identify the worst possible payoff for each of their strategies and then select the strategy whose worst outcome is the least damaging – minimizing the maximum potential loss.1 Conversely, from the perspective of maximizing guaranteed gains (maximin), a player identifies the minimum payoff they could receive for each of their strategies, given the opponent’s possible responses. They then choose the strategy that yields the largest of these minimum payoffs – maximizing the minimum guaranteed gain.1 In two-player, zero-sum games with perfect information, these two values converge, representing the rational outcome if both players adhere to this cautious, worst-case logic.1

Applications in Diplomacy and IR: The logic of minimax/maximin provides a valuable, albeit simplified, lens for understanding strategic decision-making in international relations, an arena often characterized by conflicting interests, uncertainty, and high stakes.1 Its applications include:

• Worst-Case Scenario Planning: States frequently operate with incomplete information about rivals’ intentions or capabilities. Minimax thinking encourages policymakers to consider the most damaging actions adversaries might take and plan accordingly, for instance, during treaty negotiations or when assessing military threats.1
• Minimizing Vulnerability: By focusing on potential negative outcomes, the principle helps states identify and mitigate vulnerabilities through actions like military build-ups, alliance formation, or economic diversification.1
• Establishing “Red Lines”: Declaring certain actions by adversaries as unacceptable, triggering severe consequences, can be seen as an attempt to deter those actions by highlighting the potential “maximum loss” the adversary would face.1
• Negotiation Strategy: Negotiators might determine their “reservation point” – the least acceptable outcome (maximin payoff) – and strive to achieve a result better than this baseline, while simultaneously limiting the opponent’s potential gains.1
• Deterrence: Particularly in nuclear strategy, deterrence relies heavily on convincing an adversary that the costs of an attack (their maximum loss) would be unacceptably high due to retaliation.1
• Arms Races: Paradoxically, if State A perceives State B increasing its military strength, State A might adopt a minimax strategy by bolstering its own forces to minimize potential losses in a future conflict, contributing to an arms race dynamic.1
• Analyzing Specific Conflicts: Game theory has been applied to model specific international issues, such as the Iranian nuclear program 2 or general processes like war bargaining.1

Limitations and Critiques: Despite its analytical rigor, game theory faces significant limitations when applied to the complexities of international diplomacy. The core assumption of perfect rationality is frequently challenged; leaders are influenced by emotions, cognitive biases, domestic politics, and incomplete information, leading to decisions that deviate from purely rational calculations.1 The sheer number of actors and the intricate web of relationships in IR make accurately modeling all strategies and payoffs exceedingly difficult.1 Information is rarely perfect or symmetrical.1 Furthermore, many diplomatic situations are non-zero-sum, involving potential for mutual gain.1 In such cases, a strict minimax focus on avoiding worst-case losses can perversely block opportunities for cooperation and lead to suboptimal, mutually damaging outcomes.1

Additional critiques point to models potentially misspecifying the rules of the ‘game’ being played or confusing stated goals with the assumption of rational choice itself.6 The existence of multiple possible equilibria in many games presents challenges for prediction, and methods for selecting among them can seem arbitrary.6 Some argue that game theory oversimplifies complex power dynamics and fails to adequately account for the determinants of power or the constraints on available actions.7 Critics in the 1990s, and even more recently, have questioned whether game theory, despite its sophistication, has generated sufficient novel empirical insights into international security, sometimes clinging to theoretically elegant but empirically weak models.8 The difficulty in numerically ordering preferences in complex political scenarios 6 and the impossibility of formulating comprehensive strategies for all contingencies (unlike simpler games like chess) further limit its direct applicability.9 The potential for manipulation through misinformation can also skew expectations and outcomes away from theoretical predictions.9 Finally, the approach often neglects the crucial role of cultural context in shaping interactions and interpretations 9, and simulation exercises used for teaching may rely on outdated or overly simplified scenarios.10

The numerous critiques leveled against game theory’s predictive power in the messy reality of international relations highlight its limitations as a direct explanatory tool. Its stringent assumptions about rationality, information, and the structure of interactions are often violated. However, this does not render the framework useless. Instead, its primary value may lie in establishing a normative baseline for strategic behavior. By defining what constitutes a ‘rational’ choice under idealized conditions, game theory allows analysts to identify when and why real-world diplomatic behavior deviates from this baseline.1 These deviations become analytically significant, pointing towards the influence of factors that game theory typically excludes but which other theories emphasize – such as psychological biases, the power of norms and ideas (Constructivism), or the emergent dynamics of complex systems (CAS). In this sense, the limitations of game theory paradoxically underscore its utility as an analytical starting point, highlighting the boundaries of rational calculation and directing attention towards the complex, often non-rational factors that shape diplomatic outcomes.

1.2 Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS): Diplomacy as an Emergent Phenomenon

Definition and Core Concepts: Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory offers a distinct perspective, viewing international relations not as a static structure or a simple sum of state actions, but as a dynamic, evolving system composed of numerous interacting components.12 Originating in the natural sciences (biology, physics) but increasingly applied to social systems, CAS models emphasize how macro-level patterns emerge from the micro-level interactions of diverse, adaptive agents.12 Key characteristics define these systems:

• Variety/Heterogeneity: CAS consist of a large number of different types of actors possessing decision-making capabilities. In IR, this includes not only states but also international organizations (IOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), non-state armed groups, social movements, epistemic communities, and even influential individuals.15 The social construction of identities adds further diversity.15
• Density/Interconnectedness: These diverse actors are linked through dense networks of relationships (political, economic, social, informational).12 This high degree of connectivity means that influence, information, and power can flow through multiple, often indirect pathways, making the network structure itself a crucial determinant of outcomes.12 Hyperconnectivity is a defining feature of modern globalization.17
• Openness: CAS are open systems, meaning they interact with and are influenced by their external environment.12 Factors like global economic shifts, climate change, technological innovations, or pandemics, while not strictly part of the international political system, significantly impact its dynamics and policy choices.15
• Adaptation: Agents within a CAS are not static; they learn, respond to feedback, and change their behavior based on their interactions with other agents and the environment.12 This adaptive capacity is crucial for system evolution and resilience.12
• Non-linearity: Relationships between cause and effect are typically non-linear. Small actions or changes can trigger disproportionately large, often unpredictable, consequences due to the system’s interconnectedness and feedback mechanisms.12 CAS are often sensitive to initial conditions, meaning small early differences can lead to vastly different long-term trajectories.14
• Emergence: This is perhaps the most critical concept. Macro-level properties and behaviors of the system – such as international norms, patterns of cooperation or conflict, world order, crises, or stability – arise spontaneously from the micro-level interactions of the agents.12 These emergent properties are irreducible; they cannot be fully understood or predicted simply by summing the characteristics or actions of the individual components (“the whole is more than the sum of its parts”).12
• Feedback Loops: Interactions generate feedback loops. Positive feedback amplifies initial changes, potentially leading to rapid escalation or transformation (e.g., widespread norm adoption, arms races). Negative feedback dampens changes, promoting stability or return to a previous state (e.g., resistance to norm change, balancing behavior).14 The interplay of these loops drives system dynamics.18
• Self-Organization: Order and coherent patterns can emerge within the system without central control or external direction, arising from the local interactions and adaptations of agents.13
• Attractors: Despite potential chaos, CAS may exhibit tendencies to settle into certain stable states or patterns of behavior known as attractors.18 Conflict and peace can themselves be conceptualized as stable attractors in the international system; escaping a conflict attractor requires changing the system’s underlying dynamics.21

Applications in IR and Diplomacy: Applying a CAS lens offers novel ways to understand international relations as a constantly evolving, interconnected system.13 It helps explain phenomena that traditional linear or state-centric models struggle with:

• Emergence of Norms and Governance: International norms can be seen as emergent properties arising from agent interactions, which then shape future behavior.15 Governance systems evolve through decentralized cooperation and the multiplication of diverse organizations.20
• Unintended Consequences and Systemic Effects: In a densely networked world, local actions can have unforeseen and widespread systemic impacts, propagating rapidly.12 This highlights the risks of interventions in complex situations.12
• Network Dynamics: CAS emphasizes the role of network structures in conflict, cooperation, information flow, and resilience.12 Understanding network position and connectivity becomes crucial.12
• Global Challenges: The framework is well-suited to analyzing complex global challenges like pandemics, climate change, or the weaponization of information, which involve multiple interacting factors and feedback loops.12
• Sudden Shifts and Crises: CAS can account for abrupt, non-linear changes and crises (like the end of the Cold War or financial crises) that seem unpredictable from linear perspectives.14
• Peace and Conflict Dynamics: Conflict and peace can be modeled as emergent system states or attractors, with stability depending on underlying system dynamics rather than just specific events.21
• Interdependence and Co-evolution: CAS highlights the deep interdependence and co-evolutionary dynamics between actors in the international system.19
• Diplomatic Practice: Diplomacy itself evolves as actors diversify.19 Even seemingly minor diplomatic actions (like gifts or ‘Twiplomacy’) can serve functions in maintaining relationships within a complex system.20 The concept of ‘strategic diplomacy’ has been proposed as a framework specifically designed for managing complexity in statecraft.17

Limitations and Critiques: Despite its growing appeal, the application of CAS theory in IR faces several challenges and criticisms. The term “complexity” itself is sometimes used vaguely as a buzzword without rigorous application.26 Concepts can lack precise definition, and there’s occasional confusion between system characteristics (causes) and properties (consequences).24 The inherent non-linearity and emergence make prediction and control extremely difficult, limiting its direct utility for short-term policy prescription.22 Defining the boundaries of a complex social system is often problematic and somewhat arbitrary.30

Furthermore, CAS models can sometimes remain at the level of metaphor or abstract description, failing to provide concrete, testable hypotheses or actionable policy guidance.25 Some applications, like “system leadership” models derived from complexity thinking, have been criticized as potentially overly individualistic or as depoliticizing inherently contested issues by taking existing configurations for granted.28 Certain strands of complexity theory might retain Newtonian assumptions about predictability or reductionism, creating tension with more radical post-Newtonian or quantum-inspired perspectives.30 Adoption within mainstream IR has been relatively slow 24, partly because CAS does not offer a single, overarching predictive theory in the manner of Realism or Liberalism, focusing instead on understanding dynamic processes and emergent patterns.29

A significant contribution of the CAS perspective lies in its potential to bridge the long-standing agent-structure debate in IR theory.21 Traditional theories often prioritize either the influence of the overarching system structure (like Neorealism) or the actions and interactions of agents (like Constructivism). CAS, however, inherently incorporates both levels. It focuses explicitly on the micro-level interactions of diverse, adaptive agents – states, IOs, NGOs, individuals – highlighting their capacity for learning and change.12 Simultaneously, it emphasizes how these very interactions generate emergent macro-level structures – norms, rules, patterns of conflict and cooperation, the overall ‘world order’.12 Crucially, this is not a one-way street. The emergent structures generated by agent interactions feed back to constrain and influence the subsequent behavior, and even shape the identities and interests, of those agents.15 This creates a dynamic, co-evolutionary interplay where agents construct the system, and the system, in turn, shapes the agents. This moves beyond static conceptions where either structure or agency holds ultimate primacy, offering a more integrated and dynamic understanding of how international politics unfolds.13 It allows for conceptualizing structure not as a fixed container, but as an ongoing process, constantly produced and reproduced through interaction.

1.3 Hyperbolic Geometry and Complex Systems: Exploring Theoretical Frontiers

Defining Hyperbolic Geometry/Embedding: Hyperbolic geometry is a type of non-Euclidean geometry where parallel lines diverge. In the context of network science and complex systems, ‘hyperbolic embedding’ refers to a technique for mapping the nodes of a network onto a hyperbolic space, often visualized as a disk (the Poincaré disk model being common).32 In these embeddings, the distance of a node from the center of the disk (radial coordinate) typically represents its centrality, popularity, or influence within the network, while the angular distance between nodes reflects their similarity or topological proximity (how closely connected they are within the network structure).32 The fundamental idea is that many complex networks possess an underlying ‘hidden’ geometric structure, and hyperbolic space often provides a natural and efficient way to represent this structure.32

Relevance to Network Analysis in Complex Systems: This geometric approach has proven remarkably effective in modeling and understanding the structure of a wide variety of real-world complex networks. These include technological networks like the Internet 34, social networks 35, biological networks such as protein-protein interaction networks or brain connectomes 35, and economic networks like international trade patterns.32 Networks embedded in hyperbolic space naturally exhibit key properties observed in these real systems, such as scale-free degree distributions (a few nodes having many connections, while most have few), high levels of clustering (nodes’ neighbors are also likely to be connected), and hierarchical community structures.32 The geometric framework provides insights into network navigability (how easily information can route through the network), network growth and evolution mechanisms, robustness to failures or attacks, and the relationship between structure and function.32 Various algorithms have been developed to infer the hyperbolic coordinates of nodes from network data, enabling the analysis of these underlying geometries.33 Notably, one study specifically suggests that the international trade system exhibits hyperbolic geometry, reflecting its complex architecture.32

Assessing the “Hyperbolic 3-Space Lensing” Link to Diplomacy: The user query specifically mentioned “hyperbolic 3-space lensing” in connection with CAS and diplomacy. A critical assessment of the provided research material reveals no support for this specific linkage. The snippets extensively discuss hyperbolic geometry (usually embedding networks in 2D hyperbolic space, though higher dimensions are acknowledged 35) as a tool for understanding complex networks.32 Complex networks, in turn, are relevant to modeling aspects of international relations.12 However, the term “lensing” does not appear in any of the relevant snippets discussing hyperbolic geometry in the context of complex systems or social sciences. The only mention of “hyperbolic 3-space” 41 occurs in a paper focused purely on differential geometry and topology (specifically, dihedral rigidity), completely unrelated to network theory, CAS, diplomacy, or international relations. Other snippets retrieved for this term relate to disparate fields such as astrophysics 42, materials science 43, machine translation 44, or general computational methods 45, none of which bridge to diplomacy or CAS.

Synthesize: In summary, hyperbolic geometry and embedding techniques represent a significant and growing area within network science, offering powerful tools for analyzing the structure and properties of complex systems found across many scientific domains.32 There is evidence suggesting its applicability to understanding the structure of international trade networks.32 However, based solely on the provided academic sources, there is currently no empirical or theoretical basis for linking the specific concept of “hyperbolic 3-space lensing” to Complex Adaptive Systems within the field of diplomacy or international relations. This connection appears highly speculative and unsubstantiated in the relevant literature. While the underlying geometry of international interaction networks might eventually be shown to have hyperbolic characteristics, offering structural insights, the specific “lensing” mechanism and its application to diplomatic processes lacks foundation in the reviewed material.

The exploration of advanced mathematical concepts like hyperbolic geometry highlights a persistent gap between formal modeling and the practice of diplomacy. While these geometric models can effectively describe the structure of complex interaction networks – identifying hubs, communities, and pathways 32 – translating these structural insights into explanations or guidance for diplomatic behavior is a significant challenge. Diplomacy involves agency, negotiation strategies, normative considerations, perceptions, misperceptions, and the pursuit of political goals – elements far richer and more dynamic than the static geometric representation alone captures.47 The term “lensing,” absent from the relevant literature, itself implies a dynamic process of distortion or focusing, which is not inherent in the described geometric embedding methods. Therefore, while the potential exists to bridge the structural insights from network geometry with the process-oriented study of diplomacy, this requires careful theoretical development and empirical validation within the specific context of international relations. Simply importing mathematical metaphors without demonstrating their concrete explanatory power for diplomatic actions or outcomes risks being unproductive or misleading. The absence of “lensing” in the relevant academic discourse suggests the term may represent a speculative combination of concepts rather than an established analytical tool in IR.

1.4 Major International Relations Theories: Framing Diplomatic Interaction

Overview: Beyond formal models like game theory and CAS, the study of international relations relies heavily on broader theoretical frameworks that offer distinct lenses for interpreting state behavior, power dynamics, and diplomatic interactions.49 These theories, while acknowledged as simplifications of a complex reality 52, provide foundational assumptions and conceptual tools for analysis. The three most prominent schools are Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism.50

Realism:

• Core Tenets: Realism, often considered the dominant traditional theory, emphasizes the centrality of the state as the primary actor in international politics.50 It views the international system as fundamentally anarchic, lacking a higher authority to enforce rules or mediate disputes.49 In this self-help system, states are driven primarily by self-interest, with survival and security being the paramount goals.49 Consequently, international relations is seen as an inherent struggle for power and security among states.49 Power, typically measured in military and economic capabilities, is the key variable determining state behavior and relations.50 Realists often hold a pessimistic view of human nature and the prospects for lasting cooperation, seeing conflict as unavoidable and war as a common feature of the system.51 This perspective frequently leads to viewing international interactions as a zero-sum game, where one state’s gain is another’s loss, emphasizing relative gains over absolute ones.54 Diplomacy and international law are considered secondary tools, effective only when backed by sufficient power or serving immediate self-interest.53 Variants exist, including Classical Realism (emphasizing human nature) 49, Neorealism or Structural Realism (emphasizing the system’s anarchic structure) 49, Offensive Realism (states maximize power) 50, and Defensive Realism (states prioritize security).50
• Implications for Diplomacy: From a realist perspective, diplomacy serves primarily to signal power, bargain based on relative capabilities, and manage conflicts of interest within the overarching power struggle. Alliances are viewed as temporary, interest-based arrangements for balancing power.59 International institutions are seen largely as reflections of the underlying distribution of power among states, rather than independent forces for peace.51

Liberalism:

• Core Tenets: Liberalism offers a more optimistic perspective, emphasizing the potential for cooperation, progress, and peace in international relations.49 It acknowledges the importance of states but also highlights the significant roles played by other actors, including international organizations (IOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, and individuals.49 Liberals stress the importance of international institutions, norms, and law in shaping state behavior and facilitating cooperation.49 Key tenets include the belief that economic interdependence (Commercial Liberalism) reduces the likelihood of conflict by increasing the costs of war 49, and that democratic states are less likely to fight each other (Democratic Peace Theory).49 Liberalism generally posits a potential for positive-sum outcomes, where cooperation can lead to mutual benefits, rejecting the strict zero-sum view of Realism.52 It often holds a more optimistic view of human potential for reason and cooperation.51 Precursors include Idealism or Wilsonianism.50 Neoliberalism focuses specifically on how institutions help states overcome collective action problems and achieve cooperation.49
• Implications for Diplomacy: Liberalism places great value on diplomacy, negotiation, and international organizations as primary tools for managing relations and resolving disputes peacefully.52 It emphasizes building trust, fostering shared norms, creating mutually beneficial agreements, and utilizing soft power (cultural and political appeal) alongside economic statecraft.62 Multilateralism is often a preferred approach.64

Constructivism:

• Core Tenets: Constructivism shifts the focus from material factors (like power or wealth) to the role of ideas, norms, identities, culture, and social interaction in shaping international relations.49 It argues that the international system, including fundamental concepts like anarchy or state interests, is not fixed or materially determined but is socially constructed through the ongoing interactions and shared understandings of actors.51 Interests and identities are not given but emerge and evolve through these interactions.51 Constructivists emphasize the importance of shared beliefs, values, and norms in guiding behavior and defining what is considered legitimate or appropriate action.60 The famous phrase “anarchy is what states make of it” captures the idea that the nature of the international system depends on the shared perceptions and practices of states.51 Non-state actors, such as advocacy networks or epistemic communities, can play crucial roles as “norm entrepreneurs,” promoting new ideas and standards.60 International norms themselves can be seen as emergent properties of interaction within the system.15 Constructivism is often viewed as occupying a middle ground between traditional theories and more critical approaches.51
• Implications for Diplomacy: Diplomacy is seen as a vital social practice where meanings are constructed, identities are shaped, interests are defined, and norms are contested and diffused.47 Communication, persuasion, argumentation, and socialization processes are central to diplomatic interactions. The legitimacy and perceived appropriateness of actions are key considerations. International organizations serve not only as forums for negotiation but also as arenas for norm development and socialization.60

These major IR theories act as powerful filters through which policymakers and analysts perceive and interpret international events. The fundamental assumptions embedded within each framework – whether explicit or implicitly held – profoundly shape how actors define their national interests, identify threats, assess opportunities, and ultimately choose their diplomatic strategies. A worldview grounded in Realism, with its emphasis on anarchy, self-help, and the centrality of power 50, naturally predisposes actors towards prioritizing military preparedness, viewing cooperative ventures with skepticism due to concerns about relative gains 57, and favoring diplomatic approaches rooted in coercion or leverage.55 Conversely, a Liberal perspective, highlighting interdependence, the pacifying effects of democracy and trade, and the utility of international institutions 49, encourages the pursuit of multilateral solutions, economic engagement, and diplomacy aimed at finding common ground and achieving positive-sum outcomes.54 A Constructivist lens, focusing on the power of shared norms, ideas, and identities 51, leads to an emphasis on public diplomacy, norm promotion, multilateral engagement for socialization purposes, and actions designed to build legitimacy and foster shared understandings. Therefore, the selection of a diplomatic strategy often reflects not just a calculated tactical choice, but deeper, sometimes unarticulated, theoretical beliefs about the fundamental nature of the international system. Recognizing these underlying assumptions is thus essential for accurately analyzing and predicting state behavior and diplomatic engagement.

1.5 Negotiation Theory and Multilateralism: Instruments of Cooperation

Negotiation Theory: Negotiation is a fundamental process in human interaction and a core instrument of diplomacy, defined as a discussion between two or more parties aimed at reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on issues where interests may diverge.47 It typically involves communication, persuasion, compromise, and the exchange of concessions.48 As a vital tool for peaceful conflict resolution and achieving consensus among international actors, negotiation stands in contrast to the use of hard power or coercion.47 The field draws on insights from various disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and economics, to understand and improve negotiation processes and outcomes.47 Key elements often include clearly identifying underlying interests (not just stated positions), exploring options for mutual gain, employing active listening techniques to ensure understanding, managing concessions strategically, and potentially using techniques like “constructive ambiguity” (using deliberately vague language to overcome sticking points on sensitive terms).48 Negotiation approaches themselves can reflect broader IR theoretical orientations: realists may favor pragmatic bargaining based on power realities, liberals focus on cooperative problem-solving based on international standards, and constructivists emphasize dialogue aimed at building shared understanding and trust.47

Multilateralism: Multilateral diplomacy refers specifically to diplomatic negotiations involving three or more states, often including non-state actors as well.64 This stands in contrast to bilateral diplomacy, which involves only two states.63 Multilateral settings significantly increase the complexity of negotiations due to the multiplicity of parties, issues, potential roles actors can play, and underlying values.64 Such diplomacy frequently takes place within the framework of international organizations like the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), or World Health Organization (WHO), which provide established platforms and procedures.64 Multilateralism as a principle often implies a commitment to organizing international activities based on generalized principles of conduct applicable to all, rather than discriminatory bilateral deals.64 The process typically involves complex stages of agenda-setting, information exchange, proposal development, consensus-building, and often, the formation of coalitions among states with similar interests to increase leverage.66 Different states may adopt distinct roles within these negotiations, such as ‘drivers’ pushing for specific outcomes, neutral ‘conductors’ facilitating agreement, ‘defenders’ protecting certain interests, or ‘brakers’ slowing down the process.67 Managing this complexity often requires strategies for simplification (e.g., grouping issues or parties) and structuring the process.68 States may choose multilateral engagement strategically when the perceived benefits – such as enhanced legitimacy, better information access, or burden-sharing – outweigh the costs of constraints and increased diplomatic effort.64 While its origins can be traced further back, modern multilateral diplomacy is strongly associated with the rise of international organizations after World War II.66 It continues to evolve, facing new challenges in adapting to issues like cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and managing global chaos.66

Relationship: Multilateralism represents a specific, and significantly more complex, context for the practice of negotiation.64 While the fundamental principles and techniques of negotiation theory apply in both bilateral and multilateral settings, the multilateral environment introduces unique dynamics. Managing multiple, often conflicting, interests simultaneously, navigating complex procedural rules within institutions, and the constant formation and reformation of coalitions among numerous actors require advanced diplomatic skills and strategies beyond those sufficient for simpler two-party talks.64

A notable tension exists within multilateral diplomacy. On one hand, the ideal of multilateralism, often associated with liberal internationalism, emphasizes cooperation based on shared norms, generalized principles of conduct, and collective problem-solving for the common good.61 International organizations are seen as forums for fostering trust and achieving mutually beneficial outcomes.52 On the other hand, the practice of multilateral diplomacy, as observed in real-world negotiations within these institutions, frequently involves intense strategic maneuvering, power politics, and interest-based bargaining that resonates strongly with realist and game-theoretic perspectives.67 Actors form coalitions not just based on shared values but also to enhance their bargaining leverage.67 Role differentiation often reflects underlying power dynamics and specific national interests.67 Furthermore, states may engage in multilateral processes pragmatically, choosing this path only when the specific benefits like legitimacy or burden-sharing are deemed advantageous, suggesting a transactional calculus even within these supposedly principled frameworks.64 This implies that while multilateral institutions provide vital arenas for pursuing cooperative solutions (a liberal view), the diplomatic processes unfolding within them are often characterized by the same strategic interactions and competitive dynamics found elsewhere in international relations. Successfully navigating multilateral diplomacy thus requires skillfully managing this inherent tension between cooperative aspirations and the persistent realities of state interests and power competition.

Section 2: The “Winner-Take-All” Approach: Confrontation and Zero-Sum Dynamics

This section examines diplomatic approaches characterized by confrontation, a focus on unilateral advantage, and the perception of international relations as a zero-sum game where one side’s gain necessitates another’s loss.

2.1 Defining the Zero-Sum / “Winner-Take-All” Paradigm

Core Tenets: The concept of a zero-sum game, drawn from game theory, describes a situation where the total gains and losses among participants sum to zero.1 In essence, it is a purely competitive scenario where one player’s victory comes directly at the expense of another player’s defeat; resources or benefits are fixed, and the interaction is about dividing this fixed pie.4 This contrasts sharply with non-zero-sum games, which allow for outcomes where all parties can gain (positive-sum or win-win) or all parties can lose (negative-sum or lose-lose) through cooperation or conflict escalation, respectively.1 Zero-sum interactions are inherently characterized by conflicting interests and competition.4 The “winner-take-all” mentality reflects this dynamic, focusing solely on achieving victory and maximizing one’s own share, regardless of the cost to others or potential mutual benefits foregone.

Characteristics in IR: In international relations, the zero-sum perspective is most closely associated with Realist theory, particularly its emphasis on relative gains.54 Realists argue that in an anarchic system, states are primarily concerned not just with their own absolute well-being, but with their power and influence compared to other states.57 This focus can lead states to reject cooperative ventures, even if they offer absolute benefits, if they fear that a rival might gain more, thus improving its relative position.57 This perspective views international relations as fundamentally competitive and conflict-prone.4 Concrete examples often cited as approximating zero-sum dynamics include territorial disputes over fixed land or resources, protectionist trade policies where market access gained by one is seen as market share lost by another, arms races where one state’s security enhancement is perceived as a threat by others, and competitive alliance politics where gaining an ally is seen as weakening a rival.4 Such dynamics often arise when the object of competition is perceived as scarce (e.g., power, status, key resources) or when possessing it confers a unique strategic advantage.58 A key characteristic of this paradigm is its tendency to overlook or dismiss possibilities for cooperation and mutual benefit.72

Transactional Diplomacy: Transactional diplomacy is a specific diplomatic style often linked to a zero-sum or winner-take-all worldview.73 It prioritizes concrete, often short-term, exchanges and tangible benefits – such as economic concessions, security guarantees, or specific policy changes – over abstract principles, shared values, long-term relationships, or trust-building.73 Diplomatic engagements are treated akin to business deals, involving a clear cost-benefit analysis and a focus on maximizing leverage to secure the best possible outcome for one’s own side.73 This approach often favors bilateral negotiations, where leverage can be more directly applied, over multilateral arrangements that might involve broader principles or constraints.74 It tends to emphasize hard power (military or economic coercion) and explicit leverage over soft power or normative persuasion.77 The goal is often described as coming out “on top” in the transaction.77

While true zero-sum situations might be rare in the complex web of international relations 71, the perception of an interaction as zero-sum can be profoundly consequential. Many global challenges, such as climate change, pandemic response, or managing the global economy, are inherently non-zero-sum; cooperation is necessary for effective solutions, and failure can lead to collective losses.72 However, if key actors approach these issues with a zero-sum mindset, framing them as purely competitive struggles for advantage, it fundamentally alters their behavior. Such a perception leads actors to prioritize relative gains 57, employ coercive or hard-bargaining tactics 77, and view concessions by others not as steps towards mutual benefit but as signs of weakness to be exploited. This dynamic actively discourages the trust and reciprocity needed for cooperation, potentially locking actors into conflict spirals or leading to mutually detrimental outcomes, such as trade wars or the failure to address shared existential threats.54 Thus, the belief in a zero-sum game can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, manufacturing conflict even where the underlying structure of the problem allows for, or even demands, cooperation. A central challenge for diplomacy, therefore, lies in overcoming these zero-sum perceptions, particularly when leaders explicitly adopt transactional or confrontational frames. Approaches rooted in Liberalism or negotiation theory, which emphasize shared interests and the potential for mutual gains, actively attempt to reframe interactions as potentially positive-sum.54

2.2 Historical Manifestations: Analyzing Diplomatic Styles

Examining the diplomatic styles of specific leaders and regimes provides concrete illustrations of how confrontational or winner-take-all approaches manifest in practice.

2.2.1 Transactional Diplomacy: The Case of Donald Trump

The foreign policy of Donald Trump’s presidency is frequently analyzed through the lens of transactional diplomacy and his “America First” doctrine.75 This approach appeared to prioritize a narrowly defined U.S. national interest, often framed in economic terms, sometimes seemingly at the expense of traditional alliances and established international norms or institutions.80 His diplomatic style was widely characterized as highly transactional, mirroring his background in business.77 Engagements were often viewed as deals where the primary objective was to maximize leverage and secure a tangible “win” for the United States, with less emphasis placed on long-term relationships, shared values, or trust-building.73 This often involved a preference for bilateral negotiations over multilateral frameworks 74 and a reliance on economic leverage and hard power rhetoric.77

Specific examples illustrating this approach include:

• Repeatedly questioning the value of NATO and conditioning U.S. commitment on allies increasing their defense spending, treating the alliance as a transactional arrangement rather than a bedrock security commitment.73
• Withdrawing the U.S. from major international agreements like the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), often citing unfair burdens on the U.S..83
• Initiating trade disputes and imposing tariffs on goods from countries including China, Canada, and Mexico, aiming to reduce trade deficits and pressure partners into concessions.77
• Prioritizing relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia based on large-scale economic investments and arms deals.77
• Employing a highly personalized style of diplomacy, sometimes conducting sensitive negotiations secretively or announcing major policy shifts via social media platforms like Twitter, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels.83 Trump’s digital diplomacy style was often described as colloquial, rule-breaking, and potentially frivolous, jumping between issues.85
• Speculation surrounding potential deals, such as a plan to end the war in Ukraine quickly, possibly involving territorial concessions, further fueled perceptions of a transactional approach prioritizing immediate deal-making over long-term principles.82

Scholarly interpretations vary. Some analysts view Trump’s policies as a necessary disruption of a complacent status quo and a pragmatic adaptation to a changing multipolar world, crediting him with needed corrections, such as a tougher stance on Chinese trade practices.80 Others critique the approach as chaotic, unpredictable 82, and damaging to U.S. alliances, leadership, and the broader international order.77 There remains debate on whether his actions represented a coherent strategic shift or a series of reactive, ad-hoc decisions driven by personality and domestic politics.80

2.2.2 Aggressive Revisionism: The Case of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler’s foreign policy provides a stark historical example of a diplomatic strategy subordinated to an aggressive, expansionist ideology.59 Driven by the core tenets of Nazism – particularly the pursuit of Lebensraum (living space) in Eastern Europe and beliefs in racial hierarchy – Hitler aimed to fundamentally overturn the post-World War I European order established by the Treaty of Versailles.86 While diplomacy was employed, it served as a tactical instrument to achieve predetermined, non-negotiable goals of territorial conquest and racial domination.86

Hitler’s diplomatic strategy involved a series of calculated steps designed to dismantle the Versailles system, rebuild German military power, and acquire territory incrementally, while exploiting divisions and anxieties among potential adversaries:

• Undermining International Structures: Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and disarmament conferences, signaling rejection of the existing collective security framework.87
• Breaking Treaty Obligations: The remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 directly violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties, a gamble that Britain and France would not intervene militarily.87
• Expansion through Coercion and Appeasement: Germany annexed Austria (the Anschluss) in 1938.86 Later that year, Hitler threatened war over the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. The ensuing Munich Agreement, where Britain and France conceded the territory to Germany in hopes of avoiding war, became the epitome of the policy of appeasement.87 Hitler, however, viewed these concessions not as solutions but as stepping stones, breaking the agreement shortly after by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia.
• Tactical Alliances: The signing of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939 was a stunning diplomatic maneuver. It was not based on shared ideology but on tactical convenience, neutralizing the Soviet Union temporarily to allow Germany to invade Poland without facing an immediate two-front war.86
• Initiation of War: Having secured his eastern flank temporarily, Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, triggering declarations of war from Britain and France and starting World War II.88 His later invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) represented the pursuit of his core ideological goal of Lebensraum.86

Scholarly analysis consistently portrays Hitler’s foreign policy as a prime example of aggressive revisionism driven by a radical ideology.59 His use of diplomacy highlights how negotiation and agreements can be employed deceptively as tools to mask aggressive intent and lull adversaries into inaction.86 The failure of appeasement in the face of Hitler’s ambitions serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of concession-based diplomacy when dealing with leaders who reject established norms and harbor expansionist goals that cannot be satisfied through negotiation.87 While some debate exists regarding the degree of continuity versus rupture with earlier German foreign policy aims 89, the centrality of Nazi ideology in driving the Third Reich towards war and conquest is widely accepted.86

While both Trump’s transactionalism and Hitler’s aggressive revisionism fall under the broad umbrella of confrontational approaches that challenge established diplomatic norms and often operate with a “winner-take-all” logic, crucial distinctions exist in their underlying motivations and ultimate objectives. Trump’s approach, as documented and analyzed, appears primarily rooted in a transactional calculation of national interest, frequently defined in economic terms.73 The desired “win” often involves securing better trade deals, forcing allies to increase defense contributions, or attracting foreign investment.77 While highly disruptive to existing alliances and institutions, this approach implicitly suggests that deals are possible, contingent on sufficient leverage and perceived advantage for the U.S..73 In contrast, Hitler’s foreign policy was fundamentally driven by a non-negotiable, expansionist ideology demanding large-scale territorial conquest and the racial restructuring of Europe.86 Diplomacy, for Hitler, was merely a tactical means to achieve these predetermined ends, which were ultimately incompatible with the existing international order or the sovereignty of targeted nations. Genuine, lasting diplomatic solutions were therefore precluded by the very nature of his regime’s goals. Recognizing this distinction is critical. While both styles undermine cooperative diplomacy, the nature of the challenge they pose differs significantly. Transactionalism, however disruptive, might theoretically be addressed through counter-leverage, hard bargaining, or reframing interests. Ideologically driven expansionism, aiming for goals achievable only through force, often leaves diplomacy with limited options beyond deterrence, containment, or ultimately, confrontation. Treating both simply as “winner-take-all” risks obscuring these vital differences in motivation and ultimate intent.

Section 3: Comparative Analysis: Assumptions, Methods, and Outcomes

This section provides a direct comparison of the cooperative/strategic/systemic approaches and the confrontational/zero-sum approaches across key dimensions: foundational assumptions, diplomatic methodologies, and typical outcomes.

3.1 Foundational Differences: Assumptions and Objectives

The diplomatic paradigms under review rest on fundamentally different assumptions about the nature of international relations, which in turn shape their objectives.

• View of International System: Realism and much of classical game theory start from the assumption of anarchy – the absence of a central world government – leading logically to a self-help system where states must prioritize their own survival.1 Liberalism, while acknowledging anarchy, sees potential for order and mitigation of conflict through international institutions, law, economic interdependence, and democratic norms.49 Constructivism argues that anarchy itself is not a fixed material condition but a social construct; its meaning and implications depend on the shared ideas and practices of states (“anarchy is what states make of it”).51 CAS theory views the international system as a complex, adaptive network characterized by interconnectedness, non-linearity, and emergent properties, where order and disorder co-exist and evolve dynamically.12 In stark contrast, the winner-take-all approach implicitly assumes a highly competitive, often brutal, anarchic environment where power is the ultimate arbiter and cooperative structures are either irrelevant or obstacles to be overcome.54
• Key Actors: A major dividing line is the focus on actors. Realism and traditional game theory are strongly state-centric, viewing states as the primary, often unitary, rational actors.1 Liberalism, Constructivism, and CAS theory all recognize the significant influence of multiple actors, including international organizations, NGOs, multinational corporations, transnational networks, and even individuals.15 Winner-take-all approaches tend to revert to a state-centric focus, prioritizing the power and advantage of one’s own nation-state above all else.
• Nature of Power: Conceptions of power also differ. Realism emphasizes material power – military strength and economic capability – as the ultimate currency of international politics.50 Liberalism acknowledges material power but also stresses the importance of “soft power” (cultural and ideological attraction), institutional influence, and the power derived from economic interdependence.62 Constructivism focuses on normative power – the ability to shape norms, ideas, and perceptions of legitimacy – and the power inherent in shared identities.60 CAS theory conceptualizes power as more diffuse, networked, relational, and non-linear, where influence can emerge from unexpected places within the system.15 Winner-take-all approaches typically prioritize hard power and tangible leverage (economic or military) to compel desired outcomes.77
• Goals of Diplomacy: The objectives pursued through diplomacy vary accordingly. For Realists and zero-sum game theorists, the primary goals are state survival, security, and the maximization of relative power.50 For Liberals, objectives include achieving peace, fostering cooperation, building mutually beneficial relationships, and upholding international law and norms.49 Constructivists aim to shape identities, promote specific norms and values, and build shared understandings.51 From a CAS perspective, diplomacy might be seen as navigating complexity, fostering systemic resilience, and guiding adaptation.17 The objective of winner-take-all diplomacy is simpler and more direct: to maximize unilateral advantage, impose one’s will on others, and secure victory in competitive interactions.73
• Gains: The distinction between relative and absolute gains is crucial. Realism and winner-take-all approaches are fundamentally concerned with relative gains – ensuring one gains more than, or at the expense of, rivals.54 Liberalism and cooperative game theory emphasize the possibility and desirability of absolute or mutual gains, where all parties can benefit from cooperation.54 CAS allows for more complex outcomes that may not fit neatly into either category, including synergistic effects where the whole is greater than the sum of parts, or cascading failures.
• Cooperation: Consequently, views on cooperation diverge sharply. Realism, zero-sum game theory, and winner-take-all approaches are inherently skeptical about the feasibility or desirability of deep cooperation, viewing it as risky or temporary.49 Liberalism and Constructivism see cooperation as both possible and beneficial, facilitated by institutions, shared norms, or common identities.49 Non-zero-sum game theory explicitly models cooperative potential.4 CAS views cooperation as one possible emergent pattern of interaction and adaptation within the system.22

These foundational assumptions are not merely academic distinctions; they profoundly shape how policymakers perceive the realm of the possible in international relations. If the world is assumed to be an inherently zero-sum struggle for power (Realism/Winner-Take-All), then strategies prioritizing unilateral strength and viewing cooperation with deep suspicion appear rational.54 Diplomacy becomes a tool of leverage and coercion. If, however, the world is seen as one where interdependence creates opportunities for mutual gain facilitated by institutions (Liberalism), then pursuing cooperation through negotiation and multilateral frameworks becomes the logical course.49 Diplomacy focuses on finding common ground. If reality is understood as socially constructed through interaction (Constructivism), then interests are malleable, and diplomacy can aim to change perceptions and build shared norms through persuasion and dialogue.51 If the system is viewed as a complex adaptive one (CAS), then outcomes are recognized as emergent and often unpredictable, demanding strategies focused on adaptation, resilience, and navigating uncertainty.12 Diplomacy becomes a process of probing, learning, and fostering adaptive capacity. In essence, the theoretical lens adopted by decision-makers acts as a powerful filter, pre-determining the range of diplomatic strategies they deem viable and the objectives they pursue.

3.2 Methodological Contrasts: Diplomacy in Practice

The differing assumptions and objectives translate into distinct diplomatic methods and practices.

• Negotiation Style: Game theory suggests rational bargaining based on calculated payoffs and strategic moves.1 Liberalism and negotiation theory advocate for principled negotiation focused on identifying underlying interests and seeking mutually beneficial (“win-win”) solutions.47 Constructivism emphasizes dialogue aimed at achieving shared understanding, building trust, and appealing to norms and identity.47 A CAS-informed approach might involve adaptive probing, experimentation, and learning within the negotiation process itself. In contrast, winner-take-all and transactional approaches typically employ coercive bargaining, leveraging power imbalances, issuing threats, and focusing on extracting maximum concessions from the other side, often with little regard for the relationship.73
• Role of Institutions: Realists tend to view international institutions as arenas reflecting state power or tools used by powerful states to advance their interests.51 Liberals and proponents of multilateralism see institutions as crucial facilitators of cooperation, providers of information, monitors of compliance, and enforcers of norms and rules.49 Constructivists view institutions as important sites where norms are created, contested, and diffused, and where state identities and interests can be socialized.60 CAS might model institutions as key nodes or structures within the larger complex network, shaping flows of information and influence.15 Winner-take-all approaches often display skepticism towards institutions, preferring to bypass them or undermine them if they constrain unilateral action.82
• Alliances: Realism traditionally views alliances as temporary, pragmatic arrangements for balancing power against common threats.59 Liberalism sees alliances as potentially durable partnerships based on shared democratic values and long-term common interests. Constructivism might emphasize the role of shared identity (“security communities”) in sustaining alliances. CAS could analyze alliances as dynamic components within the larger international network structure. Winner-take-all or transactional approaches may treat alliances instrumentally, questioning their value if perceived costs outweigh immediate benefits, or demanding specific contributions in return for security commitments.73
• Use of Power: Realism and winner-take-all approaches place a strong emphasis on hard power – military capabilities and economic coercion – as the most effective tools of statecraft.56 Liberalism and Constructivism highlight the utility of soft power (cultural influence, values), economic interdependence, persuasion, and the power of legitimacy.48 CAS points to more complex, non-linear, and networked forms of power and influence operating within the system.15
• Time Horizon: Transactional and winner-take-all approaches often exhibit a short-term focus, prioritizing immediate, tangible gains and concrete deals.73 Liberalism, Constructivism, and CAS thinking tend to incorporate longer time horizons, emphasizing relationship-building, institutional development, the gradual evolution of norms, and long-term adaptation and resilience.76 Game theory can model both single interactions (“one-shot games”) and ongoing relationships (“repeated games” or “supergames”), allowing for analysis of both short-term incentives and long-term strategic considerations.70

The diplomatic methods chosen by states are not merely neutral instruments for achieving predefined goals; they actively shape the international environment through feedback mechanisms. Consistent application of cooperative methods – such as good-faith negotiation within multilateral frameworks, adherence to international law, and investment in institution-building – can foster reciprocal behavior, build trust over time, strengthen cooperative norms, and create shared expectations of stability.47 This can generate positive feedback loops that make future cooperation easier and more likely, aligning with Liberal and Constructivist dynamics. Conversely, the persistent use of confrontational tactics – including coercion, unilateral actions that disregard allies or institutions, zero-sum bargaining, and reneging on agreements – tends to erode trust, provoke hostility and countermeasures from rivals, and reinforce realist perceptions of a dangerous, competitive world.54 This often creates negative feedback loops, leading to security dilemmas, arms races, and escalating instability. Complex Adaptive Systems theory explicitly accounts for such feedback loops, where actions taken by agents within the system alter the context for future interactions.15 Therefore, diplomatic methodology itself functions as an input into the complex system of international relations, influencing its trajectory. Short-term advantages secured through aggressive or purely transactional means may come at the significant long-term cost of damaged relationships, increased systemic instability, and a diminished capacity for collective action on shared challenges.

3.3 Divergent Outcomes: Evaluating Effectiveness and Stability

Different diplomatic approaches tend to produce different outcomes in terms of conflict resolution, cooperation, international order, and predictability.

• Conflict Resolution: Cooperative and systemic approaches generally aim for sustainable, mutually acceptable resolutions to conflict through processes like negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and the use of institutional frameworks.47 The goal is often not just to end violence but to address underlying issues and potentially transform the relationship between conflicting parties.21 Game theory models conflict scenarios, with outcomes depending heavily on the structure of the game (zero-sum vs. non-zero-sum) and players’ strategies. CAS theory suggests conflict can be an emergent property of system dynamics or even a stable ‘attractor state’ that is difficult to escape without altering the system itself.21 Winner-take-all approaches may achieve decisive military or political victories for one side in the short term. However, by prioritizing unilateral imposition over mutual agreement, they often fail to address the root causes of conflict and can leave behind deep resentments, making future conflict more likely and undermining long-term stability.72 Historical analysis suggests that great power rivalries perceived as zero-sum rarely end through diplomacy alone, often requiring war or the collapse of one side.90
• Cooperation & Alliances: Cooperative and systemic approaches are inherently better suited to fostering cooperation on shared global challenges (e.g., climate change, pandemics, economic stability) and building durable, trust-based alliances founded on shared interests or values.49 Winner-take-all approaches actively hinder cooperation by framing interactions competitively and eroding trust.72 They can destabilize alliances by treating partners transactionally, questioning commitments, or prioritizing unilateral actions over collective interests.73
• International Order & Stability: Liberalism, Constructivism, and multilateralism generally support and seek to strengthen a rules-based international order, promoting stability through shared norms, predictable procedures, and institutions.60 Realism accepts order primarily as a reflection of the balance of power. Winner-take-all approaches, particularly aggressive revisionism (like Hitler’s) or disruptive transactionalism (like Trump’s), inherently challenge the existing order, potentially leading to instability, systemic transformation, or even breakdown.77 CAS offers a more dynamic view of stability, suggesting systems might operate near the “edge of chaos” – a state between rigid order and complete turbulence – and are prone to sudden, non-linear shifts.14 Stability, in this view, is not static but involves continuous adaptation and potential reorganization.12 Game theory equilibria represent points of stability within a given game, but don’t inherently address the stability of the game’s rules themselves.
• Predictability: Traditional IR theories like Realism and Liberalism, along with game theory, aim to provide predictive power based on assumptions about structure, interests, or rational calculation.1 CAS theory, however, emphasizes the inherent unpredictability of complex systems due to non-linearity, emergence, and sensitivity to initial conditions.12 Winner-take-all approaches can also be highly unpredictable, especially when driven by the personality or whims of individual leaders, or when involving sudden, disruptive shifts in policy.82

These divergent outcomes highlight a potential trade-off between stability and adaptability in the international system. Approaches emphasizing rules, predictable rationality, and institutional frameworks (like Liberalism and Game Theory) aim to create and maintain stability.60 However, excessive rigidity or adherence to an outdated status quo can hinder the system’s ability to adapt to new challenges or fundamental shifts in power and context – a potential critique of some forms of liberal institutionalism. Confrontational approaches (Winner-Take-All) can certainly force change, sometimes rapidly, but often do so at the cost of generating significant instability, conflict, and unpredictable consequences.72 Complex Adaptive Systems theory suggests that healthy, sustainable systems are not necessarily those that are most rigidly stable, but those that possess resilience – the capacity to absorb shocks, adapt to changing conditions, and reorganize without collapsing.12 This resilience often requires a degree of flexibility, diversity, and learning capacity that overly rigid systems lack.12 Game theory focuses on achieving stable equilibria within a defined game structure but struggles to account for how the game itself might change or evolve over time. CAS, through its concepts of adaptation and emergence, explicitly addresses this systemic evolution. This suggests that an optimal diplomatic approach might be one that seeks to balance the need for predictable rules and stable cooperation with the imperative of fostering adaptability and resilience in the face of inevitable change and complexity, navigating the dynamic space between rigid order and destabilizing chaos.22

Table 1: Comparative Summary of Diplomatic Approaches

 

Feature	Game Theory	Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)	Realism	Liberalism	Constructivism	Winner-Take-All / Zero-Sum / Transactional
Core Assumption about IR	Rational actors in strategic interaction (often anarchy assumed) 1	Networked, adaptive agents; emergent, non-linear dynamics 12	Power struggle in anarchy; state-centric; self-help 50	Potential for cooperation via institutions, interdependence, democracy 49	Socially constructed reality; importance of norms, ideas, identity 51	Inherent competition; zero-sum struggle for advantage 4
Primary Objective	Maximize utility / payoff; Minimax loss (zero-sum) 1	Foster adaptation, resilience; navigate complexity 12	Maximize power & security; survival 50	Achieve peace, cooperation, mutual (absolute) gains 49	Shape norms, identities, shared understandings 51	Maximize unilateral advantage; achieve relative gains 57
Typical Methods	Strategic calculation; bargaining based on payoffs 1	Network analysis; adaptive probing; fostering resilience 17	Power balancing; coercion; military/economic leverage 55	Negotiation; institution-building; multilateralism; economic ties 52	Persuasion; socialization; norm promotion; dialogue 47	Leverage; coercion; unilateralism; hard bargaining; bypassing institutions 77
View of Cooperation	Strategic/conditional; possible if payoffs align (non-zero-sum) 1	Emergent property; possible through adaptation & self-organization 22	Difficult; temporary; relative gains concerns paramount 49	Desirable; achievable through institutions & shared interests 49	Possible & desirable through shared norms/identity 51	Undesirable; risky; opportunity for exploitation 54
Potential Strengths	Rigor; strategic insight; clarifies rational baseline 1	Holistic view; explains emergence, non-linearity, adaptation 12	Explains power politics, conflict, security dilemmas 50	Facilitates cooperation, stability, addressing shared problems 54	Explains normative change, identity politics, role of ideas 51	Decisive action; potential short-term gains for actor; disrupts unfavorable status quo
Potential Weaknesses	Rationality/info assumptions unrealistic; oversimplification 1	Predictive difficulty; abstraction; potential lack of policy guidance 25	Overlooks cooperation, non-state actors, domestic politics 50	Can be slow; vulnerable to defectors; potentially idealistic 54	Less predictive power on material outcomes; focus on process 29	High conflict risk; damages relationships; ignores interdependence 72
Key Risks	Suboptimal outcomes (non-zero-sum); escalation; miscalculation 1	Unintended consequences; system instability; analytical intractability 12	Perpetual conflict; security dilemmas; arms races 54	Exploitation by non-cooperators; institutional gridlock; slow adaptation	Normative manipulation; unpredictability of social construction	Isolation; systemic breakdown; mutually destructive conflict (war) 72

Section 4: Synthesis and Evaluation: Implications for Modern Diplomacy

Having examined the core tenets, methodologies, and outcomes of various diplomatic paradigms, this section synthesizes the findings and evaluates their relevance and implications for navigating the complexities of contemporary international relations.

4.1 Assessing Cooperative/Strategic/Systemic Approaches

The approaches grouped under the cooperative, strategic, and systemic umbrella – encompassing Game Theory, CAS, Liberalism, Constructivism, Negotiation Theory, and Multilateralism – offer significant strengths for managing international affairs. Their primary advantage lies in acknowledging and providing frameworks for managing interdependence and achieving non-zero-sum outcomes. Liberalism and associated practices like negotiation and multilateralism explicitly aim to build institutions and foster norms that facilitate cooperation on shared global problems, from economic stability to climate change, potentially leading to mutual gains and enhanced peace.54 Game theory, despite its limitations, provides rigorous tools for analyzing strategic interactions, understanding deterrence logic, and identifying potential pitfalls in bargaining.1 Constructivism crucially incorporates the power of ideas, norms, and identities, explaining processes of social change and the importance of legitimacy in international politics.51 Complex Adaptive Systems theory offers perhaps the most sophisticated lens for understanding the dynamics of our increasingly interconnected and globalized world, capable of explaining emergence, non-linearity, feedback loops, and the importance of adaptation and resilience in navigating complex challenges.12 Collectively, these approaches tend to support stable relationships and the development of a rules-based international order.

However, these approaches are not without weaknesses and limitations. Cooperative frameworks, particularly those rooted in Liberalism, can be vulnerable to actors who refuse to play by the rules, prioritize relative gains, or exploit cooperative arrangements for unilateral advantage (the “defection” problem in game theory).9 Multilateral processes can be slow, cumbersome, and prone to gridlock or yielding only lowest-common-denominator agreements due to the need for consensus among many diverse actors.64 Game theory’s reliance on stringent assumptions about rationality and information often limits its direct applicability to real-world diplomatic complexities.1 CAS theory, while powerful conceptually, can struggle with predictive accuracy and may yield insights that are too abstract or complex to translate easily into concrete policy prescriptions.25 Traditional theories, including Realism and Liberalism, were notably poor at predicting sudden systemic shifts like the end of the Cold War, a weakness that CAS theory’s focus on non-linearity and emergence aims to address.25 Furthermore, achieving cooperation often requires significant time, effort, and trust-building, resources that may be lacking in crisis situations or highly competitive environments.

4.2 Assessing Confrontational/Zero-Sum Approaches

From the perspective of an actor employing them, confrontational or zero-sum approaches can appear to offer certain advantages. They allow for potentially decisive action aimed at achieving clear, unilateral gains, particularly if the actor possesses superior power or leverage. Such approaches can be effective in disrupting an existing status quo perceived as unfavorable. By framing issues in starkly competitive terms (“us vs. them”), they can simplify complex situations and mobilize domestic support through appeals to nationalism or perceived grievance. The focus on maximizing one’s own advantage provides a clear, albeit narrow, sense of purpose.

However, from a broader systemic perspective and considering long-term consequences, the weaknesses and risks associated with these approaches are profound and widely documented. The inherent focus on competition and unilateral gain makes cooperation on shared problems extremely difficult, if not impossible.72 These approaches tend to damage long-term relationships, erode trust, and provoke hostility and countermeasures from other actors, often leading to escalating cycles of conflict, arms races, and instability.54 By viewing the world through a zero-sum lens, they often overlook or actively reject opportunities for mutual benefit, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes for all involved, including the actor employing the confrontational strategy (negative-sum potential).71 In an interconnected world, the assumption of simple cause-and-effect underlying many confrontational tactics ignores the potential for complex feedback loops and unintended consequences that can undermine the actor’s own goals.12 Historically, purely confrontational and expansionist policies, such as those of Nazi Germany, have led to catastrophic wars and systemic breakdown.86 Even less extreme transactional approaches risk alienating allies, undermining international institutions, and fostering global instability.77 Ultimately, the pursuit of purely unilateral advantage in an interdependent system often proves self-defeating in the long run.

4.3 Risks, Limitations, and Contemporary Relevance

Evaluating these paradigms in the context of the 21st-century international environment – characterized by multipolarity, deep economic interdependence, rapid technological change, hyperconnectivity 17, and pressing transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, and cyber threats 15 – reveals critical insights. The very nature of these complex, interconnected challenges strongly suggests that purely confrontational or zero-sum approaches are increasingly inadequate and dangerous. Addressing issues that inherently cross borders and affect multiple actors requires coordinated action and cooperation, precisely what zero-sum mentalities preclude.72 Attempting to achieve unilateral advantage on such issues is often futile and risks exacerbating the problem for everyone.

Cooperative and systemic approaches, therefore, appear far better suited, at least in principle, to managing the realities of the contemporary world. Liberal institutionalism provides frameworks for collective action, Constructivism highlights the need for shared norms and understanding, negotiation theory offers tools for finding common ground, and CAS provides a language for understanding the complex dynamics, feedback loops, and emergent properties of globalized systems.17 However, these approaches face the persistent challenge of actors who prioritize short-term relative gains, operate outside established norms, or employ disruptive transactional tactics.73 The effectiveness of cooperative frameworks depends on a critical mass of actors willing to abide by their principles.

This highlights the need for what some scholars term “system diplomacy” – an approach that acknowledges the complexity and value pluralism inherent in international systems and focuses on navigating intractable differences through attention to micro-politics, soft power, and fostering adaptive capacity rather than attempting top-down control.28 It also underscores the limitations of all theoretical models. No single paradigm perfectly captures the multifaceted reality of international relations. Game theory’s rationality assumptions are flawed 1; Realism underplays cooperation and non-state actors 50; Liberalism can seem idealistic in the face of power politics 51; Constructivism struggles with predictive power regarding material outcomes 29; and CAS faces challenges in moving from description to prescription.25

This necessitates a pragmatic and context-dependent approach to diplomacy, one capable of integrating insights from multiple theoretical perspectives. Furthermore, the analysis reveals a potential paradox concerning power in our complex world. Traditional conceptions of power, central to Realism and winner-take-all approaches, emphasize control, dominance, and the ability to impose one’s will unilaterally.55 However, insights from CAS suggest that in highly interconnected, non-linear systems, attempts at unilateral control are often ineffective and can trigger destabilizing feedback loops and unintended consequences that ultimately harm the actor seeking control.12 In such environments, effective influence (“power”) may derive less from coercive capacity and more from the ability to understand and navigate network dynamics, build coalitions, foster resilience, shape norms persuasively, and adapt effectively to change – capabilities highlighted by CAS, Liberalism, and Constructivism.12 This implies that in the 21st century, the relentless pursuit of power defined in purely zero-sum, confrontational terms may be increasingly counterproductive. Strategies that embrace complexity, foster cooperation, and build systemic resilience might, paradoxically, prove more “powerful” in achieving sustainable national interests and managing global challenges, fundamentally challenging the core logic of traditional power politics.

Conclusion

The analysis presented in this report underscores a fundamental divergence in the conceptualization and practice of diplomacy. On one side stand cooperative, strategic, and systemic approaches, represented by frameworks like Game Theory, Complex Adaptive Systems theory, Liberalism, Constructivism, Negotiation Theory, and Multilateralism. These paradigms, while distinct, generally operate on the premise that international interactions are not necessarily zero-sum. They emphasize rationality, rules, norms, institutions, complex interdependencies, and emergent system dynamics, employing methods geared towards strategic calculation, managing interdependence, fostering cooperation, shaping norms, or achieving shared goals. Game theory provides a baseline for rational strategy, CAS offers tools for understanding complexity and emergence, Liberalism highlights institutions and interdependence, Constructivism focuses on norms and identity, and negotiation/multilateralism provide practical mechanisms for interaction.

Contrasting sharply with these are the confrontational, zero-sum approaches, exemplified by realist focus on relative gains, transactional diplomacy, and aggressive revisionism. These paradigms typically assume inherent conflict and competition, prioritize unilateral advantage and relative gains, discount or dismiss the value of cooperation and international institutions, and frequently rely on coercive leverage, hard bargaining, or disruptive tactics to achieve objectives defined in win-lose terms. The diplomatic styles attributed to Donald Trump (transactionalism) and Adolf Hitler (ideological expansionism), while differing significantly in their ultimate aims, both illustrate departures from cooperative norms and a prioritization of unilateral will over negotiated consensus or systemic stability.

In evaluating these paradigms for contemporary relevance, it becomes evident that the increasing complexity and interdependence of the international system render purely confrontational and zero-sum approaches highly problematic and potentially self-defeating. While they might offer perceived short-term advantages or serve to disrupt an unfavorable status quo, their inherent tendency to generate instability, erode trust, and hinder cooperation makes them ill-suited for addressing the major transnational challenges of our time.17 Cooperative, strategic, and systemic approaches, despite their own inherent limitations and susceptibility to spoilers, offer more viable pathways toward managing shared risks and achieving sustainable peace, security, and prosperity. The insights gleaned from Complex Adaptive Systems theory, in particular, compel a move beyond simplistic, linear models of international relations. They highlight the pervasive nature of non-linearity, feedback loops, and emergence, urging diplomats and policymakers to embrace uncertainty, prioritize resilience, and develop adaptive strategies capable of navigating a world characterized by constant change and unpredictable dynamics.22 Ultimately, a sophisticated understanding of the assumptions, methodologies, and likely consequences associated with the full spectrum of diplomatic paradigms is essential for making informed foreign policy choices and effectively navigating the intricate landscape of 21st-century world politics.

Works cited

1. Game theory – Wikipedia, accessed April 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
2. Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/Revista_Digital/RevistaIEEE_Num_12_Espanol-Ingles.pdf
3. The Limits of the Scientific Method in International Relations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.e-ir.info/2022/01/27/the-limits-of-the-scientific-method-in-international-relations/
4. Games Theory of International Relations – Political Science Teaching Aid, accessed April 23, 2025, https://dennana.in/2024/03/31/games-theory-of-international-relations/
5. Game theory, the science of interactive decision-making, burst upon the academic scene in 1944 with the publication of von Neuma – University of California San Diego, accessed April 23, 2025, https://pages.ucsd.edu/~bslantchev/incollection/pdf/IRCompend-W02F.pdf
6. Game Theory: Pitfalls and Opportunities in Applying It to International Relations | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227493862_Game_Theory_Pitfalls_and_Opportunities_in_Applying_It_to_International_Relations
7. Game Theory as an Instrument for the Analysis of International Relations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/ir/isaru/assets/file/journal/14-2_hector.pdf
8. Empirical Promise of Game Theory | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, accessed April 23, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-515?p=emailAiIEKxU6l3z/2&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-515
9. GAME THEORY FOR INTERNATIONAL ACCORDS – Scholar Commons, accessed April 23, 2025, https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=scjilb
10. PROGRAMME REGULATIONS & CURRICULUM – Presidency, accessed April 23, 2025, https://presidencyuniversity.in/uploads/images/67c7d4888080c1741149320.pdf
11. Gamification in Diplomacy Studies as an Effective Tool for Knowledge Transfer, accessed April 23, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9086880/
12. Complex Adaptive Systems in a Contentious World – ScholarWorks …, accessed April 23, 2025, https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1826&context=nejpp
13. A New Taxonomy for International Relations: Rethinking the International System as a Complex Adaptive System – Munich Personal RePEc Archive, accessed April 23, 2025, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/95496/2/MPRA_paper_95496.pdf
14. Meta-Systemic Model of Transformation: A General Complexity-Based Approach in Political Science and International Relations – Czasopisma, accessed April 23, 2025, https://czasopisma.marszalek.com.pl/images/pliki/ppsy/52/ppsy202321-7.pdf
15. International Norms as Emergent Properties of Complex Adaptive Systems – Oxford Academic, accessed April 23, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/67/3/sqad063/7232791
16. International Relations and Complex Systems Theory – Journals ISSS, accessed April 23, 2025, https://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings51st/article/download/607/225/3512
17. Rethinking strategy and statecraft for the twenty-first century of complexity: a case for strategic diplomacy | International Affairs | Oxford Academic, accessed April 23, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/2/443/6522059
18. International Relations – APSA Preprints, accessed April 23, 2025, https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets/orp/resource/item/6319ab6749042a1a06cfe254/original/complex-effects-of-international-relations.pdf
19. ARTICLE Rethinking Actor and Order with Complexity Theory: A Novel Approach to Diplomacy – DergiPark, accessed April 23, 2025, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2880684
20. International Norms as Emergent Properties of Complex Adaptive Systems – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373195227_International_Norms_as_Emergent_Properties_of_Complex_Adaptive_Systems
21. Complex Systems – New Conceptual Tools for International Relations – Columbia University, accessed April 23, 2025, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/iirp/26_2006_summer/26_2006_summer_c.pdf
22. Taking Cues From Complexity: How Complex Adaptive Systems Prepare for All-Domain Operation – National Defense University Press, accessed April 23, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3837288/taking-cues-from-complexity-how-complex-adaptive-systems-prepare-for-all-domain/
23. The Role of the Complex (Adaptive) Systems Approach (Chapter 7) – Social Sustainability, Past and Future – Cambridge University Press, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-sustainability-past-and-future/role-of-the-complex-adaptive-systems-approach/F6F59CA8879515E3178770111717455A
24. Forum: Complex Systems and International Governance – Oxford Academic, accessed April 23, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/22/4/1008/5319218?rss=1
25. Complexity in Global Politics: Toward a Novel Framework of Analysis – Harvard DASH, accessed April 23, 2025, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/79213ddb-0703-4503-8a3e-d70b6f938140/download
26. Complex Systems Approaches to Global Politics – International Relations – Oxford Bibliographies, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0278.xml
27. The use of complexity-based models in international relations: A technical overview and discussion of prospects and challenges – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239788953_The_use_of_complexity-based_models_in_international_relations_A_technical_overview_and_discussion_of_prospects_and_challenges
28. Full article: New development: System diplomacy—an alternative to system leadership, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540962.2025.2462230?af=R
29. Complexity theory in: United Nations peace operations and International Relations theory, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526148889/9781526148889.00015.xml
30. Complexity and Quantum in International Relations – Oxford Research Encyclopedias, accessed April 23, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-698?d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190846626.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190846626-e-698&p=emailA4FfSoSRULepg
31. Beyond models and metaphors: Complexity theory, systems thinking and international relations – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239788950_Beyond_models_and_metaphors_Complexity_theory_systems_thinking_and_international_relations
32. Characterizing the analogy between hyperbolic embedding and community structure of complex networks | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386655995_Characterizing_the_analogy_between_hyperbolic_embedding_and_community_structure_of_complex_networks
33. Machine learning meets complex networks via coalescent embedding in the hyperbolic space – PubMed, accessed April 23, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29151574/
34. (PDF) Efficient embedding of complex networks to hyperbolic space via their Laplacian, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305624423_Efficient_embedding_of_complex_networks_to_hyperbolic_space_via_their_Laplacian
35. ‘Spying’ on the hidden geometry of complex networks through machine intelligence – TU Dresden, accessed April 23, 2025, https://tu-dresden.de/tu-dresden/newsportal/news/spionieren-der-versteckten-geometrie-komplexer-netzwerke-mit-hilfe-von-maschinenintelligenz?set_language=en
36. Higher-Order Networks – Cambridge University Press, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/higherorder-networks/26EE7ED4ECB114B2E231987C22759CDF
37. The Structure and Function of Complex Networks | SIAM Review, accessed April 23, 2025, https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/S003614450342480?journalCode=siread
38. Press release | December 8, 2017 – ‘Spying’ on the hidden geometry of complex networks through machine intelligence, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.digs-ils.phd/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/press-releases/171208-pr-biotec-cannistraci.pdf
39. Eigenvector-Like Measures of Centrality for Asymmetric Relations – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216636713_Eigenvector-Like_Measures_of_Centrality_for_Asymmetric_Relations
40. arXiv:1905.09579v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 23 May 2019, accessed April 23, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09579
41. [2208.03859] Dihedral rigidity in hyperbolic 3-space – arXiv, accessed April 23, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03859
42. zenodo.org, accessed April 23, 2025, https://zenodo.org/records/7319224/files/journalarticle.csv?download=1
43. On the Cover – NSF, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.nsf.gov/attachments/297691/public/2018_MGI_PI_Meeting_Abstract_Book_Draft.pdf
44. The 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) – ACL Anthology, accessed April 23, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/events/coling-2024/
45. A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems | SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, accessed April 23, 2025, https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/080716542
46. 2019-20 – IIT(BHU), accessed April 23, 2025, https://iitbhu.ac.in/sites/default/files/institute/dean/doaa/doc/annual_report_english_2019-20.pdf
47. (PDF) Negotiation process in international relations theory: from history to contemporary practices – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388950038_Negotiation_process_in_international_relations_theory_from_history_to_contemporary_practices
48. Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground – Pon.harvard.edu, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/finding-common-ground-in-international-negotiation-nb/
49. Theories in IR: Realism, Liberalism & More | Intro to International Relations Class Notes, accessed April 23, 2025, https://fiveable.me/introduction-international-relations/unit-2
50. International relations theory – Wikipedia, accessed April 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory
51. International Relations Theory – E-International Relations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.e-ir.info/2017/01/09/international-relations-theory/
52. Introducing the Major International Relations Theories, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.e-ir.info/2024/12/29/introducing-the-major-international-relations-theories/
53. Theories Of International Relations – Diplomacy and Law, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/theories-of-international-relations
54. Economic Interdependence and Conflict: An International Relations Theory Analysis – The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College, accessed April 23, 2025, https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=gazette
55. “Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism” in “Introduction to International Relations” | Manifold @CUNY, accessed April 23, 2025, https://cuny.manifoldapp.org/read/introduction-to-international-relations/section/ceef6ace-0d87-48d1-927c-283247e3d968
56. 9.2: Theories of International Relations – Social Sci LibreTexts, accessed April 23, 2025, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Political_Science_and_Civics/An_Introduction_to_Politics_(Sell)/09%3A_International_Relations/9.02%3A_Theories_of_International_Relations
57. Relative Gains – (Intro to Political Science) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed April 23, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-to-poli-sci/relative-gains
58. Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition – RAND, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2726/RAND_RR2726.pdf
59. History of German foreign policy – Wikipedia, accessed April 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_German_foreign_policy
60. Key Theories of International Relations | Norwich University – Online, accessed April 23, 2025, https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/key-theories-international-relations
61. 7 Components of Liberalism | Norwich University – Online, accessed April 23, 2025, https://online.norwich.edu/online/about/resource-library/7-components-liberalism
62. Chapter 7: International Relations – Politics, Power, and Purpose – FHSU Digital Press, accessed April 23, 2025, https://fhsu.pressbooks.pub/orientationpolisci/chapter/chapter-7-international-relations-and-comparative-politics/
63. 4.2 Diplomacy and Negotiation in International Relations – Fiveable, accessed April 23, 2025, https://fiveable.me/introduction-international-relations/unit-4/diplomacy-negotiation-international-relations/study-guide/UECsnmiVfB7hqCBa
64. Multilateral Diplomacy | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of …, accessed April 23, 2025, https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-462?p=emailACMHDvccnsTMM&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-462
65. Diplomatic Negotiation – Clingendael, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Diplomatic_Negotiation_Web_2015.pdf
66. Multilateral Diplomacy: How Nations Cooperate on a Global Scale – Diplo – DiploFoundation, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.diplomacy.edu/topics/multilateral-diplomacy/
67. Multilateral Negotiation: An Analytic Approach – MIT Press Direct, accessed April 23, 2025, https://direct.mit.edu/ngtn/article-pdf/5/2/159/2392320/j.1571-9979.1989.tb00509.x.pdf
68. Multilateral Negotiation – EOLSS, accessed April 23, 2025, http://eolss.net/sample-chapters/c14/e1-40-03-02.pdf
69. Multilateral Negotiations: From Strategic Considerations to Tactical Recommendations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.diplomacy.edu/resource/multilateral-negotiations-from-strategic-considerations-to-tactical-recommendations/
70. Zero-sum game – Oxford Reference, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199670840.001.0001/acref-9780199670840-e-1491
71. Zero-Sum Game Meaning: Examples of Zero-Sum Games – 2025 – MasterClass, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.masterclass.com/articles/zero-sum-game-meaning
72. The Zero-Sum Game: Competition and the Illusion of Gain – Birow, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.birow.com/zero-osszegu-jatek
73. Trump and the world of transactional diplomacy – The Tribune, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.tribune242.com/news/2025/feb/27/trump-and-the-world-of-transactional-diplomacy/
74. Sovereignty first: Reshaping international cooperation in North Africa | Middle East Institute, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/sovereignty-first-reshaping-international-cooperation-north-africa
75. How the Trump 2.0 Administration Will Reshape U.S.-China Relations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.pf.org.tw/wSite/public/Attachment/003/f1744178395686.pdf
76. The Intricacies of Diplomatic Negotiations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://diplomaticacademy.us/2025/03/30/diplomatic-negotiation-tradecraft-kralev-pickering/
77. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy is a driving force on the world stage, accessed April 23, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/trumps-transactional-approach-to-diplomacy-is-a-driving-force-on-the-world-stage/articleshow/118819500.cms
78. Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy is a driving force on the world stage, accessed April 23, 2025, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/trumps-transactional-approach-to-diplomacy-is-a-driving-force-on-the-world-stage/articleshow/118819500.cms
79. Common Good Diplomacy: A Framework for Stable U.S.–China Relations – Quincy Institute, accessed April 23, 2025, https://quincyinst.org/research/common-good-diplomacy-a-framework-for-stable-u-s-china-relations/
80. Dr. Ivo Ganchev (2025) – Trump’s New Foreign Policy: Strategic Repositioning in a Multipolar World – ResearchGate, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390122112_Dr_Ivo_Ganchev_2025_-_Trump’s_New_Foreign_Policy_Strategic_Repositioning_in_a_Multipolar_World
81. America First, Again: How Trump’s Return Could Reshape U.S.-Asia Relations, accessed April 23, 2025, https://behorizon.org/america-first-again-how-trumps-return-could-reshape-u-s-asia-relations/
82. TRUMP, HARRIS AND TRANSATLANTIC UNCERTAINTIES – European Union Institute for Security Studies |, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/2024-02%20GS%20Transatlantic%20uncertainties.pdf
83. Trump’s Foreign Policies Are Better Than They Seem, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/CSR%2084_Blackwill_Trump.pdf
84. Beyond “Maximum Pressure” in US Policy on Iran: Leveraging Regional Partners to Contain Iran’s Actions and Shape its Future Choices | Middle East Institute, accessed April 23, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/beyond-maximum-pressure-us-policy-iran-leveraging-regional-partners-contain-irans
85. FINAL THESIS SANDRA – USIU-A Digital Repository, accessed April 23, 2025, https://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11732/4983/SANDRA%20KISAKYE%20NANTONGO%20MAIR%202019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
86. Enemy in the East, accessed April 23, 2025, https://prussia.online/Data/Book/en/enemy-in-the-east/Mueller%20R.-D.%20Enemy%20in%20the%20East.%20Hitler’s%20Secret%20Plans%20to%20Invade%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20(2015),%20OCR.pdf
87. The British Policy of Appeasement toward Hitler and Nazi Germany, accessed April 23, 2025, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/neville-chamberlain
88. The Fox and the Lion – CiteSeerX, accessed April 23, 2025, https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1cccae2dc38d5d0b407985410943991b00d83f55
89. The foreign Policy of Hildebrand. Anthony $3.95. Hitler, Horthy, and D. Fenyo. New Haven, New york, Cambridge University Pre, accessed April 23, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/psq/article-pdf/89/4/887/50356903/psquar_89_4_887.pdf
90. The Flaws of Defensive Realism and the False Promise of Re-engaging China, accessed April 23, 2025, https://sais.jhu.edu/kissinger/programs-and-projects/kissinger-center-papers/flaws-defensive-realism-and-false-promise