Reminiscing during foreign state visits serves as a discursive means for building interstate relationships. When political leaders strategically narrate their states’ historical legacies, they construct a collective memory that serves as a resource for creating and sustaining amicable relations between states. Studying evocations of past events in 455 speeches delivered during foreign state visits between 2010 and 2020, we demonstrate the prevalence and significance of the practice of reminiscing in interstate politics. We suggest bonding narratives as a device through which a connection is generated between two collectives to create and sustain positive relations. Despite the unique nature of bonding narratives, the constructed collective memory mostly relies on shared memories of wars, once again underlining the link between nations and violence.

The goal of this study is to capture the meaning of interstate friendship from the perspective of international actors and to underline the benefits of analyzing speech acts as a tool for revealing the relational scripts that guide interstate relations. Analysis of the discourse surrounding 215 assertions of friendship made by statespersons in a variety of diplomatic encounters and cultural contexts allows us to identify the factors that state actors articulate to develop friendly interstate relations, the practices expected from a friendly state, and the goals attributed to practices of friendship. In the Conclusion we discuss the differences between interpersonal and interstate friendships, and how the speech act of friendship plays a part in the construction of interstate relations.

Personal commitments are a ubiquitous but undertheorized phenomenon in the everyday wheels of world politics. While resonating with multiple threads in international relations theory, the role of individuals’ commitments in statecraft, diplomacy, and foreign policy has hardly been addressed in and of itself. Drawing on insights from symbolic interactionism and organizational psychology, this article conceptualizes the notion of commitment highlighting its omnipresence in foreign policy and diplomatic practice. Specifically, the article demonstrates the analytical cache of the notion of commitment by focusing on moments when state-agents deviated from their commitment to the national interest, acting on behalf of other foci of commitment. Relying on Israeli, French, and EU diplomatic archives, we examine three illustrative case studies that show how and why state-agents dedicate time, energy, and resources to advance interests other than those of the state.

While most international relations (IR) scholars tend to minimize the effect of relations between statespersons on foreign policy, this article argues that interpersonal relationships have more weight than the literature suggests. On the basis of twenty-one interviews conducted with senior Israeli statespersons, we propose a two-level model-linking positive interaction between statespersons and actual consequences at the state level. At the personal level, positive interactions can create receptiveness, build trust, facilitate accessibility and availability, and advance personal commitment. Translating these outcomes into consequences at the state level is mediated either by persuasion or by commitment. If persuasion is effective or there exists a high level of personal commitment, statespersons are more likely to succeed in mobilizing international support, removing obstacles to agreements, gathering sensitive information, and diffusing interstate tension. We conclude by discussing the limitations and advantages of good personal relations between statespersons and their implications for IR practice and theory.

International Relations scholars and practitioners commonly agree that relationships in world politics are managed impersonally. Personal connections between agents of states are perceived as having only little impact on foreign policy of states. The current article challenges this impersonal ethos, suggesting that personal relationships play an important role in conducting, and thus understanding, interstate relations. Interviews conducted with 21 senior Israeli officials concerning mundane professional practices reveal three elements that are essential for successful statecraft: acknowledging the power of interpersonal relations; substantive knowledge of counterparts; and the excellent communicative competencies needed to realize the potential of personal connections. We argue that statespersons’ behavior can be located on an impersonal-interpersonal continuum. Furthermore, we suggest explanations for deviations from the impersonal ethos and discuss the role of interpersonal practices in managing interstate relations. At the very least, the personal aspect should be taken into consideration when examining foreign policy. However, personal relations may have a highly significant impact on interstate interactions, thus requiring a revision of the current paradigm in IR, which marginalizes the personal aspect.

This paper provides an explanation for how coworkers manage to cultivate close relationships in an extremely competitive workplace. Our case study is the workplace of statespersons, considered an impersonal, rule-governed, and interest-motivated social environment, and as such, provides indications for how counterparts overcome alienation and suspicion in developing trustful relations. Interviews with twenty-one senior Israeli officials concerning mundane professional practices they employed during their service reveal a gamut of relational practices implemented in various formal and informal events in order to initiate, maintain, and strengthen close personal relationship with their foreign counterparts. A competent performance of these practices constitutes meaningful relationships, allowing statespersons to overcome the relational challenges posed by the impersonal diplomatic workplace.