Protocol Officers Association reviewed our book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’

This review was published in the ‘PDI-POA: Protocol Officers Association Newsletter, December 2016′. The review was submitted by Kathleen Montalvo, member of PDI-POA and working at the office of the Executive Director, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA , Arizona. 
Order the book on our website
for €47,50
As a member of the Education Committee, one of the best things I get to do is update our Member Resource list. Which means I get to read the latest and greatest books in protocol and etiquette. Recently, I had the pleasure of reading a wonderful book entitled An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol, Best Practices in Diplomatic and Corporate Relations by members Gilbert Monod de Froideville, the former Master of Ceremonies of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Director of the consulting company Protocol International and Mark Verheul the Head of Protocol of the City of The Hague. 

An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol is a must for every Protocol Officer’s bookshelf. The authors discuss everything from precedence to proper attire for men and women. Each chapter ends with a delightful essay or interview from a variety of experts sharing their experience within the world of protocol. 

Follow a training by the writers of ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol; follow the Three-day Masterclass in Brussels or the Two-day Protocol Training in The Hague. More information:

You will read an interview with Mr. Martin van Pernis, former President of the Board of Siemens, the Netherlands, and a brief essay by Professor Olivier Arifon, Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles in charge of the chair in communication, “Diplomatic language and formal language: A code with a double meaning,” to name a few. 

These fascinating insights provide a real sense of the far reaches protocol has within many industries and organizations throughout the world. The diagrams throughout the book are the best I have ever seen. For those of us who get their left and right and right and left mixed up, you will love the diagrams for seating whether at a dining table, conference table or in a car. Proper flag placement – don’t worry, turn to Chapter 4. Needless to say, my book is full of Post-its marking each for quick reference. The holidays are just around the corner, so add this book to your wish list. 

The Protocol Officers Association (PDI-POA) is an international association of Protocol professionals dedicated to promote the protocol profession and raise awareness of its central role in business and diplomacy through education and networking. Membership in the Association is open to professionals in the field of protocol who currently serve, or have served in the past, as protocol officers or managers for any level of government (federal/national, state/province, county, city or military) museums or cultural institutions, universities and colleges (public or private), corporations or international trade organizations.

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

From the book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’

Follow a protocol training
by the writers of the book
‘An Expert’s Guide to
International Protocol’

Diplomatic language and formal language: a code with a double meaning’ is an article from the book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol‘ written by Olivier Arifon, Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles

Read the article below or go to one of the other articles from the book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol‘ at this blog:

Protocol at the Olympic Games 
Protocol at the United Nations and at Think Tanks 

Diplomatic language and formal language: a code with a double meaning, by Olivier Arifon
This is an article from the book
‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’.
Order this book  (now with 20% discount)
in our online bookstore
In France and, by extension, in other chancelleries until the beginning of the twentieth century, the language used in diplomacy had its roots in the language of the court, more specifically that of the court of Louis XIV, which explains the place of French as the language of diplomacy (Fumaroli, 2003). The present article attempts to provide a historical and anthropological perspective on the forms of expression used by diplomats. I shall address why diplomatic language is both formal and necessary, characteristics that bring it closer to doublespeak (Delporte, 2009). The notions of ambiguity, context, emotion, and values shall be dealt with. I shall also try to show why decoding techniques are necessary to shed light on hidden meanings, the stakes and strategies involved. Indeed, diplomacy is based to a large extent on language and the received and perceived meanings of the phrases and arguments put forward. The language of diplomacy has both an internal–among diplomats—and external—for the public and the media—dimension. The present work draws upon my experience as attaché for university cooperation with the ministry of External Affairs, trainer of French and foreign diplomats in Singapore, and discussions with foreign diplomats. Finally, it is focused on the French language for two reasons: first, because it is the ‘historical’ language of diplomacy and second, because it is my mother tongue. We may argue here that in other languages too speech acts are subject to similar constraints and formality, even if accounts suggest that English and the Anglo-Saxon relational style make for simpler and more direct relations.
Diplomacy and representations
The general public tends to view diplomacy as the art of dissembling through the use of speech and a coded or formal language along with the cultivation of secrecy for the benefit of those in power. From an academic perspective, the search for invariants in diplomatic practices leads us to define the notions of borders, immunity, permanence of relations, reciprocity of treatment, the place and code of information, and finally secrecy. A perusal of studies on diplomacy, especially international relations, shows the absence of a specific category for the forms diplomatic language takes and, more importantly, the absence of case studies. In other words, little has been said about the language used in diplomacy other than viewing it as a variant of political language, which it no doubt is, as we shall see later on. More often than not, the studies identified deal with negotiating procedures, strategy or on-the-ground experience as elements for the understanding of foreign policy. In the only French work listed on the subject (Villar, 2006), a linguistic analysis is confronted with the theories of international action. The author proposes a semiotic approach around four aspects of diplomatic discourse:
Sincerity – versus – duplicity
Truthful speech – versus – lies
Truth – versus – falsehood
Transparency – versus – secrecy
On the basis of these aspects, it is possible to consider, in concurrence with discourse analysis studies, that the language used in diplomacy is an ordinary language and not a technical discourse (except in some rare cases, such as the negotiations leading to the Iran nuclear deal of 2015).
Doublespeak as defined in our research is conceived as a set language consisting of stereotype phrases and related to political discourse. In everyday language, the term refers to a constrained manner of expression, generally thought to be pejorative.
Studies on doublespeak highlight the absence of a precise message, which invades space to prevent any sensitive discourse, characterised by sincerity. As discourse appears to be powerless to change the world, the speaker uses language – or rather doublespeak – to articulate the world in accordance with a given order of power. Accordingly, language is constrained and its value becomes a substitute for meaning. A distortion between deeds and words comes into play, as Thomas Legrand observes: « […], c’est plutôt une mauvaise appréciation de la puissance de son discours ou de la puissance de la réalité face à sa propre volonté ! » [It is rather a poor appraisal of the power of one’s discourse or the power of reality in the face of one’s own desire) (Legrand, 2010: 27). Finally, doublespeak is different from administrative jargon; the former aims to convince, the latter incites one to act in a given sphere.
In the case of the language of a totalitarian regime, an idiom pushed to the extreme, the subjugation of language serves to reduce the critical faculties of the listener. Victor Klemperer, a philologist under pressure during the Nazi regime, wrote in his analysis of the language used by it: “… the listener’s emotions (and Goebbels’s audience always comprises listeners, even if it only reads the doctor’s essays in the newspaper) never come to reset, they are constantly attracted and rebuffed, attracted and rebuffed, and there is no time for critical reasoning to catch its breath” (Klemperer, 1996: 327). From a tool for reasoning, language becomes an emotion centric discourse. In his book 1984, George Orwell invented Newspeak using single word concepts with a very restricted meaning.
The language of diplomatic exchanges and writings is far removed from such extreme approaches. In place of a set language or emotional logic, we suggest fuzzy logic in a formal framework. Thus, paradoxically, a positive language embodying the specificities of diplomacy becomes a part of political discourse and constitutes the art of persuasion in the uncertain and ephemeral context of diplomatic negotiation. The aim of course is to enunciate enduring convictions. But as diplomatic language has political overtones, it shares some of the features of political discourse such as avoidance, ambiguity (of meaning), understanding (of position) or even dissimulation.  In the eyes of the public and observers of international relations, it is these aspects that give rise to the perception that diplomatic language is merely doublespeak.
When diplomacy as a profession began to expand and become organised in the European courts during the modern era, some diplomats wrote about the necessary attributes of a good diplomat of which evidently mastery of language was a part. Under the strong influence of relations among the European monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, these attributes were first and foremost signs of good breeding.
One of the oldest works entitled «De la charge et dignité de l’ambassadeur» by Jean Hotman de Villiers was written in 1604. It is a pragmatic work in which the author attempts to define the qualities of a diplomat. Knowledge of history and culture and the ability to express oneself promote “le contact avec les autres, une communauté d’apprentissage, alliant les pratiques et les théories, le passé et le présent, l’expérience, la découverte et l’application personnelles, aussi bien que les cours formalisés, l’étude et la réflexion.” [Contact with others, a community of learning, combining practice and theory, past and present, experience, personal discovery and application, as well as formal classes, study and reflection.] (Hotman de Villiers, 2003: 20).
In a similar vein, the Spanish Jesuit Baltasar Gracian published in 1647 « The Art of Worldly Wisdom ». The book portrays a man who from a courtier became a diplomat. A short essay by Baron d’Holbach gives a caustic description of the courtier in the presence of the monarch: “Under the cover of friendship he knows how to lull his enemies, show an open, affectionate face to those he most detests, embrace with tenderness the enemy he’d like to suffocate. Finally, the most impudent lies mustn’t produce any alteration in his face” (D’Holbach, 2010: 18).
Closer to our times, the works of Norbert Elias incorporate these qualities of the court system into the mechanisms of self-control and strategic relations (Elias, 1985). Norbert Elias combines etiquette with the essential motivation of members of the court, namely prestige and recognition. Thus, “par l’étiquette, la société de cour procède à son autoreprésentation, chacun se distinguant de l’autre, tous ensemble se distinguant des personnes étrangères au groupe, chacun et tous ensemble s’administrant la preuve de la valeur absolue de leur existence.” [As a matter of etiquette, the court society proceeds to its self-representation, each one distinguishing himself from the other, collectively distinguishing themselves from those outside the group and individually and collectively administering to themselves the absolute value of their existence.] (Elias, 1985: 97). When all is said and done, a good ambassador of the classical era was one who possessed a sense of tradition and had inherited or acquired natural social skills in osmosis with the great courts of Europe.  He was someone who cultivated style and eloquence, conscious of his values and of pleasing and civil manners.
In fact, the memoirs of ambassadors often emphasized these social skills and ways of conducting oneself, akin to good breeding. Little is said about language; instead the stress is on physical behaviour and the degree of individual freedom a serving diplomat enjoys. This shows the extent to which the context, the forms, and the structures of the profession condition the modalities of expression, both verbal and non-verbal, as pointed out by Martine Kingston de Leusse (1998: 86): “À partir de son entrée en accréditation, l’ambassadeur se trouve dans un milieu fermé où les actes, les vêtements, les gestes, les formes de sociabilité revêtent une spécificité qui permet d’en faire le support institutionnalisé de l’échange diplomatique courtois et pacifique.” [From the moment of his accreditation, an ambassador finds himself in a closed milieu where actions, clothes, gestures and forms of sociability take on a specificity which allow them to become the institutionalized support of courteous and peaceful diplomatic exchange.] The ambassador effaces himself as a subjective individual; he marshals his arguments and chooses his words with care, a reflection of his social skills and the political position of his country.
A scene from Nicolas Ray’s film 55 Days at Peking illustrates this clearly. The British ambassador is talking with his wife when his secretary opens the door and announces a visitor: “Commander Lewis” (an officer in the American army).
The ambassador replies: “Keep him waiting for a moment.”
He turns to his wife and says, “Excuse me. I have to put on my official face.” 
The wife leaves the room immediately, and the ambassador nonchalantly examines a set of papers and documents on his desk. Finally, he composes himself and says, “Show him in.”
In the courts of Europe and later in international organisations, control of gestures and attitudes is paramount. Kings and emperors, high-ranking officials, mandarins and diplomats are supposed to remain in control of their emotions and bodies, regardless of whether this is actually the case or imposed by social frameworks and cultural codes. As the diplomat moves in circles that overinterpret signs, he must take into account the effect of his control (or lack of control) over his words and emotions to describe a situation or the terms of an exchange. The choice of words is of the essence. And beyond the mastery of speech, the manner in which he expresses his emotions in an exchange serves, in turn, to arouse the same feelings in the person he is addressing, in other words we are dealing with the register of persuasive charm. Though this could be dangerous, for an expressive man runs the risk of revealing himself:In order to live at court one must have complete control over the muscles of one’s face in order to experience disgust without flinching. A pouter, a man of moods or susceptibility cannot succeed” (D’Holbach, 2010: 17).
The expression of ideas and emotions is also limited by the incompleteness of language, a dimension revealed by linguists (Goldschmidt, 2009) and ethno methodologists (Lecerf & Parker, 1987). These scholars have shown, often convergently, how language does not allow for complete expression of ideas and emotions. Indeed, when the individual who speaks its appropriate language, there can always be misunderstandings, errors, and shifts in meaning, blanks and gaps. This creates a distance between the two speakers, a median space constituting the relationship between the two.
The essence of diplomacy is to use everyday vocabulary and combine it with a specific code, namely the code of relations among states and the individuals entrusted with the task of negotiating with each other. Beyond this code, and as recommended in the principles of negotiation (Dupont, 1992), the attempt should be to understate words and emotions.
There are a number of reasons for this:
·      One should maintain one’s rank and show self-control; expressing disagreement while keeping a smiling face is the perfect illustration of this.
·      One should also not offend one’s interlocutor, for getting angry can interrupt or even break the dialogue and thereby the negotiation.
·      Caution is the keyword of diplomacy, and this for two reasons. Both sides must avoid offending each other or saying too much about their positions; speaking too much can also hamper the smooth progress of negotiations.
·      Finally, one should avoid showing one’s weaknesses, which may be divided into two categories: insufficient mastery of subject in case of technical matters, or the desire to stand on prestige and symbolic power (here, any sign of weakness on the part of the other may be interpreted as a factor favorable to one’s interests).
In conclusion, the forms of expression used in diplomacy reflect the respect given to the representative of a state. The types of expressions and emotions help in perpetuating relationships, both human and political.
A diplomat’s experience is directly related to his practice and the extent of his resources: similarities with other situations, quality of his information, training, and culture. Such experience helps him adapt to different contexts while remaining effective, for deciphering and adapting to changing situations is what the profession is all about. The trick is to have the cognitive, cultural, and communicational resources to apply them on the one hand and on the other, accept a certain amount of incomprehension and uncertainty in the situation as well as the social, political, and communicational elements that make up diplomacy. We are of the view that these frameworks of experience (Goffmann, 1996) constrain the diplomat and his language. And in the public mind, this is no different than doublespeak.
Diplomatic language is a subset of political language that thus relies on the same categories such as rhetoric, persuasion and manipulation, attention to the signifier and the signified… Historically, the West developed early on the art of oratory. Rhetoric, born in Greece at the beginning of the fifth century B.C., is part and parcel of democratic, legal, and commercial systems. Even today, this discipline is considered the art of acting through speech on opinions, emotions, and decisions.
One of the attributes of a diplomat is the ability to interpret vague and ambiguous elements to give him some leeway to maneuver. This vagueness is embodied in the words and forms of the discourse and has several names. It may be perceived as or called a euphemism. In the same vein, the French language uses the litote, a figure of speech that, by attenuating the expression of one’s thought, lets one suggest more than what it actually said. 
One little-discussed aspect of diplomatic discourse, namely ambiguity, needs to be stressed here. There is a distinction between semantic ambiguity (a single statement with several meanings) and strategic ambiguity, a voluntary act between statement, speaker, and recipient. For the analysis of acts of communication of diplomacy, the notion of ambiguity is essential, as it allows one to decipher the roles and behaviour of the actors. The French language is replete with synonyms and expressions which bring out the depth of this notion: ambages, allusions, demi-mots, contenus latents, sens cachés, sous-entendus, arrière-pensées [beat about the bush, allusions, hints, hidden agendas, hidden meanings, innuendos, ulterior motives.] The processes of language, the ways they are understood, in a word, the analysis of the situations of discourse, silences, and assertions is an ability every diplomat must possess. Indeed, there is frequent uncertainty between cultural systems and value systems among diplomats. This is fully reflected in the strategies and skills of negotiators. “La stratégie de communication ambiguë permet en effet de maintenir le doute chez l’interlocuteur. Certes, la communication est parfois rendue plus claire en cas de réaction favorable, mais bien souvent elle est laissée en l’état pour maintenir l’autre dans le doute. Elle permet aussi d’influencer l’impact final des signaux afin de gagner un plus grand contrôle sur les images que d’autres ont de l’émetteur.” [The strategy of ambiguous communication helps keep one’s interlocutor in doubt. Certainly, at times communication is made clearer in case of a favorable reaction, but very often it is left in such a state as to keep the other in doubt. It also helps in influencing the final impact of the signals in order to win greater control of the images others have of the speaker.] (Villar, 2006: 175).
However, it is not always a question of sidetracking or impressing one’s interlocutor. Formal language has its usefulness in diplomacy: words help neutralise or soften what they describe. Examples of such words are enlightening. Thus, when a diplomat is “surprised” at something, he is in point of fact expressing his dissatisfaction or disagreement about the ongoing situation. When he “denounces,” it means things are going badly. When he “condemns,” the situation is thought to be very serious[1].
Similarly, when he “regrets not being able to respond favorably to the request,” it is an elegant (and classic) way of indicating refusal to one’s interlocutor.
“The negotiations were frank and must be pursued further” indicates nothing substantial was achieved but that the partners decide to continue meeting each other so as not break the contact.
In this regard, one of my interlocutors told us of an interesting case. On 1 April 2000, the secretary-general of the French ministry of Foreign Affairs, the second in command after the minister, wrote a diplomatic telegram. This contained all the forms and rituals of language a diplomat normally uses, the author delighting in playing on the ambiguities allowed on account of it being April Fool’s Day in France. Sadly, I was unable to obtain a copy of it.
Finally, Marcel Proust expresses the same thing in his inimitable style while referring to the Marquis de Norpois, a diplomat: “Miserly in the use of words, not only from a professional scruple of prudence and reserve, but because words themselves have more value, present more subtleties of definition to men whose efforts protracted over a decade, to bring two countries to an understanding, are condensed, translated – in a speech or in a protocol – into a single adjective, colorless in all appearance, but to them pregnant with a world of meaning.” (Proust, 1993: 91).
This brings us to the heart of diplomacy. As the custodian of good manners and a negotiator conscious of the historical ties with his partners, the diplomat is at times obliged to remain vague. In fact, the essence of political discourse is to create spaces, usable at any moment and in multiple forms, to maintain the relationship, the negotiation, and in the end, power. These spaces form the median space between two individuals, allowing for the construction of a dialogue, the very core of the interaction and mediation process.
A language both internal and external
These variances and representations only strengthen the public view of diplomacy as a distant and set profession, the very criteria attributed to doublespeak. Indeed, an ambassador always functions within an official framework. While working together, a diplomat made the following remark: “Ce collègue (d’un autre pays) est un vrai ami. Je peux parler de tout avec lui.” [This colleague (from another country) is a true friend. I can talk to him about everything], implying that he could drop his diplomatic discourse and that representation was a constitutive dimension of diplomacy.
We would like to conclude with the work of Charles Cogan (2003) on the French style. The ambassador identified six strategic and communication characteristics of a French diplomat: deductive approach, logic of arguments (built on the belief in Reason), care given to clarity of expression in order to convince, knowledge of history, Latin panache and the awareness of the need to stick tenaciously to one’s position (based on Reason!). Thus, “For the French, it is in the order of things to find a philosophical framework first, to establish a vision of things, before entering into practical matters” (Cogan, 2003: 44).
An interesting illustration of this is the famous speech by Dominique de Villepin, the then minister of foreign affairs, during a meeting of the UN Security Council on 7 March 2003. While presenting the French position in the face of the planned intervention of the United States and their allies in Iraq, the minister argued in favour of extending the mission of the UN inspectors. This is how the speech concluded: “In a few days, we must solemnly fulfill our responsibility through a vote. We will be facing an essential choice: disarming Iraq through war or through peace. And this crucial choice implies others. It implies the international community’s ability to resolve current or future crises. It implies a vision of the world, a concept of the role of the United Nations.”
At the end of the speech, those present in the room rose to give Dominique de Villepin a standing ovation, unprecedented in the history of the Council. It marked a break from normal practice in the Council. Clearly, such a demonstration in this polite, even regulated space was indeed unusual. A comparison of these elements with the tenor, style, and form of Dominique de Villepin’s speech is enlightening, as Charles Cogan notes with finesse: “Conceptions of honour are closely associated in France with the highly esteemed notion of glory (la gloire), which in turn is seen as a close companion to such French concepts as élan, panache and cran, all of which stand in contrast to the (nevertheless secretly admired) British phlegm” (Cogan, 2003: 45). He goes on to add: “French negotiators pride themselves on their eloquence and their ability to present a logical, carefully ordered argument. The worst insult that can be laid at the foot of a French negotiator, according to several French interlocutors, is that of incoherence” (Cogan, ibid: 137).
The concern for precision and beauty of expression is typically French, though I lack the space here to expand on it any further. This leads some to say that French by its very structure is the language best suited to diplomacy. And so we come back to our starting point: the historical context, the political dimension, along with the common perception of the French abroad, the feeling of superiority and arrogance are the elements that make up the modalities of expression and communication of French diplomacy.
Diplomatic language must be viewed from two perspectives. The first is the paradox of a formal language, necessarily presenting ambiguities. As we have seen, this language with its specificities is at the service of diplomats to build relations and communication among themselves. It is thus for internal usage, and a diplomat’s experience enables him not to be misled by his colleagues. However, the opaque meaning of words, associated with the classic image of diplomacy, makes the public discredit this language, as it lacks transparency and does not correspond to what “true” communication should be. As such, the diplomat’s discourse may be described as doublespeak on account of the formal framework in which it is delivered. However, diplomatic language also has a political dimension; it is addressed to citizens and the media and in a democracy everyone is keen to understand the meaning of what is being said, which gives it an external character. For this purpose, in a society of communication decoders, journalists and specialists are major and essential players whose work is to decipher the internal codes so that they become accessible to the public at large.

Olivier Arifon, born in Paris,is Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles in charge of the chair in Communication. He teaches Influence, Lobbying and Communication, Competitive Intelligence and Public Diplomacy” with a European perspective, introducing experts and case studies as well as theoretical elements. From 1997 to 2011, he was an associate professor at the University of Strasbourg (France) on the same topics. Besides academic activities, he led a communication company for five years, was an expert in training of diplomats and managers in Poland, Croatia, France, and Singapore, and fulfilled the position of high education attaché for the French ministry of Foreign Affairs in Germany for two years. In his research, he examines how companies and civil society are developing successful strategies, considering Brussels’ activities as a model. In a comparative perspective between Europe and Asia (India), he identifies methodological approaches and communication policy for European or Indian protagonists of civil society. He is the author of more than fifty papers, book chapters, and articles in mostly academic journals. 

Bibliographical references
Chosson, Martine, Parlez-vous la langue de bois?Points, Paris, 2007.
Cogan, C., French negotiating Behavior, Dealing with la Grande Nation, Washington, Institute of Peace Press, 2003.
D’Holbach, Essai sur l’art de ramper à l’usage des courtisans, Paris, éditions Allia, 2010.
De Wilde d’Estmael, T. Liégeois, M. Delcorde, R. La diplomatie au cœur des turbulences internationales, Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2014.
Delporte, C., Une histoire de la langue de bois, Paris, Flammarion, 2009.
Dupont, Christophe, La négociation, Paris, Dalloz, 1992.
Elias, N., La société de cour, Paris, Champs Flammarion, 1985.
Fumaroli, M., Quand l’Europe parlait français, Paris, Poche no. 15418, 2003.
Goffman, E., La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne, Paris, Éditions de minuit, 1996.
Goldschläger, A., Le discours du pouvoir, Belin, Paris, 1983.
Goldschmidt, G.-A., A l’insu de Babel, Paris, CNRS éditions, 2009.
Hotman de Villiers, J., De la charge et dignité de l’ambassadeur, Paris Cergy, Essec Iréné, 2003.
Kingston de Leusse, M., Diplomatie, une sociologie des ambassadeurs, Paris, L’Harmattan, 1998.
Klemperer, V., LTI, la langue du IIIe Reich: carnets d’un philologue, Paris, Albin Michel, 1996.
La langue confisquée, Victor Klemperer et la LTI, exhibition catalogue, European Centre of Deported Resistance Members, Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg, March 2009.
Lanzac, A., Blain, C., Quai d’Orsay, Dargaud, Paris 2 vol., 2010-2011 (Comic)
Lecerf, Y., & Parker, E., Les dictatures d’intelligentsias, Paris, PUF, 1987.
Legrand, Thomas, Ce n’est rien qu’un président qui nous fait perdre notre temps, Stock, Paris, 2010.
Lemaire, Jacques, La langue de bois, De Boeck, Brussels, 2001.
Proust, Marcel, A l’ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs T1, Flammarion, Paris, 1993, p. 91
Tavernier B., Quai d’Orsay, 2013, (Movie)
Villar, C., Le discours diplomatique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2006.
Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Nieuw in onze online boekenwinkel:

Onlangs zijn twee prachtige nieuwe boeken over protocol en etiquette geschreven: Hans Bleijerveld schreef ‘Protocol & Etiquette rond de uitvaart‘ en Stefan de Vries en Roel Wolbrink schreven een nieuwe uitgave van ‘Het Blauwe Boekje‘. 

Het Blauwe Boekje
Het Blauwe Boekje is een stijlgids voor elke levensgenieter of voor wie dat wil worden en staat vol met tips over goede manieren, eten en drinkenen het dragen van de juiste kleding. Het boek is bedoeld voor wie iets van het modieuze normen- en waardendebat wil snappen, maar het boek bevat ook anekdotes, buitensporigheden, geschiedenis en nutteloze feiten.
Deze zevende editie is volledig herzien met ruim 50 nieuwe onderwerpen.

Protocol & Etiquette rond de uitvaart
In de uitvaartbranche wordt gewerkt met talloze protocollen die in de loop der jaren ontstaan zijn. Maar weten we nog wel hoe ze ontstaan zijn en wat de zin in de huidige tijd is?
De schrijver Hans Bleijerveld is directeur Bijzondere Uitvaarten bij Monuta maar schreef het boek op persoonlijke titel. “Dit naslagwerk is een leidraad voor iedereen die professioneel te maken heeft met het verzorgen van een uitvaart.

Deze boeken zijn te bestellen in onze online boekenwinkel: 

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Protocol at the Olympic Games

An article from the new book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol‘ by Mr Andrea Miliccia, Former Protocol Manager for the London 2012 Opening Ceremony. Follow a training by the writers of this book:

This is an article from the book ‘An Expert’s
Guide to International Protocol’. Order this new
book on our website:
Ten years ago, when I first started to work as venue protocol manager for the Olympic Winter Games of Torino 2006, I had no familiarity with the sport event industry and very little knowledge of the protocol world. In no time, surely because of my personal inclinations but mainly thanks to the teaching and guidance of an extremely inspired and inspiring leader such as Paul J. Foster, I discovered a passion and found my way. Paul, who over time has become my mentor and one of my dearest friends, had the merit of instilling in me his true love for the “Games”, and for making me understand and appreciate why protocol is crucial in correctly communicating the Olympic values and spirit.
Since the first edition in Athens in 1896, the modern Olympic Games have become the world’s most popular and best-beloved international multi-sport event. With more than 200 National Olympic Committees from across five continents participating – the United Nations counts 143 member states – they are not just the stage for the world’s top elite athletes to compete. In addition to being the greatest festival of sport, they are a recurring celebration of humanity, encompassing a wide array of deep-rooted rituals and traditions that set them apart from all other global sporting events. The respect of a definite set of rules, that is the Olympic protocol, preserves the power of these rituals and gives a sense of continuity to these traditions.

The gradual assimilation of their ceremonial elements over the years shaped the Olympic protocol as we know it today. Not all editions of the Olympic Games equally contributed to its development, though; the most significant period for the introduction of these ceremonial features dates back to the first half of the 20th century. Antwerp 1920, for example, saw for the very first time the Olympic flag with the five rings being raised during its opening ceremony; Paris 1924 is remembered for establishing the ritual of raising the next host country flag, as a symbolic handover, during its closing ceremony. Amsterdam 1928 is often evoked for the first fire lit in a stadium’s cauldron but, also, for the “Greece first, host nation last” protocol innovation for the athletes’ parade. While Los Angeles 1932 went down in history for introducing the raising of the medal winners’ flags during the victory ceremony, the idea of a torch relay saw the light on the occasion of the Berlin 1936 Games, where a lit torch was carried from Olympia, Greece, to the newly built Olympiastadion. After this fruitful period of two decades, nothing substantially changed until the Olympic Games of Melbourne 1956, where the athletes marched together during the closing ceremony as a symbol of global unity – previously they used to enter the stadium in alphabetical order by country – and the Games of Rome 1960, where the official Olympic anthem was first played.

Andrea Miliccia

From this brief historical overview, it becomes clear that many elements of the Olympic protocol are epitomised in the opening ceremony, which is probably the most powerful vehicle for the IOC to promote the image and preserve the magic of the Olympic Games. The entry by the head of state, the playing of the host country national anthem, the athletes’ parade, the symbolic release of doves, the opening declaration by the head of state, the raising of the Olympic flag accompanied by the playing of the Olympic anthem, the oaths, and the lighting of the cauldron are all poignant moments of the highest solemnity drenched with protocol. They are the opening ceremony. The artistic performance, however astonishing and essential in characterising and making it unique, is simply a wonderful addition to it.

As protocol manager for the London 2012 opening ceremony, I was responsible for supervising and coordinating the arrival and departure operations, the seating, and the hospitality services dedicated to the 10,000 Olympic Family members at the Olympic stadium. My focus, however, was on the 1,100 key dignitaries and members, including but not limited to: the IOC Presidential Box guests (i.e. Her Majesty The Queen and other members of the British royal family, the highest offices of the British government, the IOC president and executive board members); the heads of state and government; the IOC members; the presidents and secretaries general of the International Sports Federations. The formal planning process started one year in advance, and the latest details were finalised only few days before the event. It was the most incredible, complex, and challenging project I have ever worked on. As a team, we had to design, develop, and agree client journeys, hospitality services, seating arrangements, transportation, and security plans with all major stakeholders such as Buckingham Palace, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Metropolitan Police, and the International Olympic Committee. The seating plan was, as always, particularly delicate, but we managed it well because of the goodwill of all parties involved; everyone had to relinquish something for the overall success of the event. Our plan and the people who executed it were unquestionably the two major reasons for this tremendous accomplishment. The planning was accurate, took into consideration all variables and, most importantly, was the result of a genuine consensus. However the people on the ground turned a very good plan into a great one, and made it work extremely well. The contributions of all the other protocol officers and members of the international relations team, everyone with a specific task inside or outside the stadium, together with more than 100 volunteers, were simply extraordinary. The commitment, energy, and enthusiasm of all those friends and colleagues are definitely the best memory I keep of that incredible night. As an interesting fact, you may be surprised to know that the seventy heads of state and governments attending the opening ceremony were bussed to the Olympic stadium from Buckingham Palace, where they took part in the reception given beforehand by the Queen. What would normally be considered a heresy – think about state protocol – is here considered not only a best practice, but really the only way to make an event with such a concentration of high-calibre dignitaries happen.
Apart from the opening ceremony, there is a lot of protocol involvement with a broad range of other meetings, special events, and ceremonies happening just before or during the Olympic Games. On this occasion, however, I would like to talk about the protocol activities and services dedicated to the Olympic Family at venue only. Before doing so, I will briefly try to explain why we refer to our client group as Olympic Family, avoiding the use of the word VIP. The difference may seem subtle, but it is quite substantial. A VIP guest is usually a celebrity invited to give lustre to an event simply because of their name, whereas an Olympic Family member, whether or not a public figure, is someone participating in the Olympic Games because of their function. Also, the term “family” suggests the idea of a group of persons with something in common, revealing a very close relationship with the cause of the event.
So, what are these venue protocol activities then? At competition venues, they mainly encompass the correct application of the Olympic protocol such as ensuring the accurate display of flags; the management of all areas dedicated to the Olympic Family, namely drop-off points, lounges and tribunes; the provision of various services including meet and greet, hospitality, seating management, and flag support for victory ceremonies. Totally different operations mark the non-competition venues. At the Olympic village, for example, they mainly include the organisation of both protocol tours (for dignitaries) and Team Welcome Ceremonies (for athletes and officials). At the airport, they simply consist of appropriate meet and greet services and smooth arrival and departure operations.  Compared to other protocol-heavy working environments (i.e. the diplomatic world), I would probably say that more emphasis is here given to the operational aspects of the protocol officer role compared with its political nuances – that are still very much present. “What we do is like a fine thread that runs through all the very different fabrics of nations that make up this unique event, smoothes the edges and ties it into a most colourful patchwork of humanity. It is a challenging and yet highly rewarding job to balance the diverse elements, expectations, cultures, and to communicate the Olympic values of excellence, friendship, and respect through protocol.” This is how a brilliant former colleague lyrically summarised our job in one of our recent conversations. I could not have said it any better. In general, one of the biggest challenges of the protocol team in the lead-up to the event is educating the future domestic and international guests about the Olympic protocol peculiarity and potential discordance with the host country protocol. During the Olympic Games in fact, national and state protocol is not dismissed but, in case of conflict, Olympic protocol takes priority. In the order of precedence, for example, a minister for sport will always come before any other government minister, even those who traditionally have a heavier political weight.
Having had the chance to work on various editions of the Olympic Games I can easily say that they are the world as we dream it. Enhancing the Olympic values and somehow contributing to building a better world through sport, protocol is crucial in bringing the world together on equal standards in peace and solidarity. Also, protocol is the only credible answer to the increasing demand of correctly managing international events in which authorities and dignitaries are present. The application of some specific rules and internationally recognised procedures in fact protects officials and their role, reducing the risk of mistakes and misunderstandings. After all, protocol is a matter of respect, and to me, an understated form of art too.

Andrea Miliccia, born in Cuneo, Italy, is the chief of protocol & VIP guest management at the King Abdulaziz Center for World Culture, a fully integrated institution for knowledge, creativity, and cross-cultural engagement inspired by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.His Olympic experience started in Torino with the 2006 Olympic Winter Games where he fell in love with the Olympic movement and the world of protocol. Included in the IOC delegation for both Beijing 2008 and Vancouver 2010, he was behind the successful delivery of the protocol operations for the London 2012 opening ceremony. Andrea also worked in Rome at the presidency of the Council of Ministers of Italy for the 2009 G8 summit and, more recently, in Brazil for the 2014 FIFA World Cup.His extensive experience in designing and coordinating VIP visitations, ceremonies, and special events at major international happenings led him to establish his own management and consulting firm, Protocol AM, in 2013.After a master degree in political sciences and postgraduate studies in international relations, he completed his education with an internship at the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations in New York. 

This is an article from the book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’. Order this on the Protocolbureau website:

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Boeklancering op 21 juni

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Invitation 10 June in Brussels: book launch ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’

Protocolbureau, Europe’s leading protocol expert, has the honour to invite protocol officers to the book launch ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’ by Gilbert Monod de Froideville and Mark Verheul on Friday 10 June 2016 from 15.30 till 17.30 hrs in Hotel Marivaux in Brussels.
The book launch includes a panel discussion with the authors and François Brunagel (former Head of Protocol of the European Parliament) Diana Mather (The English Manner) and Jean Paul Wijers (Protocolbureau).
This book launch is meant for those who have to deal with protocol in their work. The presentation is an expert’s meeting. 

More information / to register:

Order the book online (with discount):

Follow a training by the writers of the book:
Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Protocol at the United Nations and at Think Tanks – A Comparative Perspective by Dr Abiodun Williams

This article is part of the new book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’ by the former Master of Ceremonies of H.M. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Gilbert Monod de Froideville and the head of protocol of the city of The Hague, Mark Verheul. Order the book now or follow a training by the writers of this book. 


Order this book at
or follow a training by the writers of this book
To the uninitiated, protocol may sometimes appear an extraneous or outdated aspect of international life. The codes and procedures that are set down in order to guide behaviour are often associated in the popular imagination with unnecessary formality or a preoccupation with tradition at the expense of transacting important business. Given the critical nature of decisions taken at the United Nations, does protocol therefore get in the way of achieving diplomatic breakthroughs? My own experience in the United Nations and international think tanks suggests just the opposite. In fact, the skepticism that some show towards protocol is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of its purpose and, more broadly, of how international politics is conducted. Diplomacy is the essence of the United Nations, and rather than being superfluous, it is protocol that lubricates relations in order to achieve desired political outcomes.
In an organisation of 193 member states, each with its own assumptions, traditions, and sensitivities, the predictability that protocol brings to interstate relations goes a long way towards avoiding the perceived embarrassments or insults which can be so inimical to intercultural understanding and, ultimately, to political progress. Those who claim the obsolescence of protocol are blind to its inherent flexibility. Protocol should not be synonymous with a rigid and complex set of rules that stands still even as empires rise and fall. The modern United Nations might share with the court of Louis XIV the operation of an established set of practices that govern its activities, but the expected behaviour at Turtle Bay, the UN’s Manhattan seat, has little to do with the moeurs of Versailles. As protocol evolves over time, it adapts to fit a given context, as others in this volume have eloquently described.
My own vantage point in this respect has been a privileged one. After serving in UN peacekeeping missions in Macedonia, Haiti, and Bosnia, I spent seven years in the executive office of the UN secretary-general, serving first Kofi Annan and then Ban Ki-moon, as director of strategic planning. From the perspective of the UN’s 38th floor – which is occupied by the secretary-general and his staff – protocol is indispensable. A typical daily schedule for the secretary-general might see him meeting with a visiting head of state or government, corresponding with or addressing diplomats in the UN General Assembly or Security Council, and delivering a speech on a contentious issue to a truly global audience.

Deftly managed, these duties can help the secretary-general perform efffectively, maximising the United Nations’ potential for conflict prevention, the promotion of sustainable development, and the protection of human rights. Missteps in protocol can, however, sour the secretary general’s relations with key states and lead to valuable time being allotted to mending fences rather than building bridges.

Since leaving the United Nations in 2007, I have worked at two international think tanks, the United States Institute for Peace and The Hague Institute for Global Justice. Service in these innovative institutions has given me a new perspective on the ‘networked’ nature of modern diplomacy, as well as new insights into the malleability of protocol, and how its application in less formal contexts than the UN can also serve policy ends. It is this comparative perspective, which evokes the fluid and ‘multi-actor’ nature of contemporary international relations, that this brief chapter will offer.

Protocol at the United Nations: Two Cases

Protocol at the United Nations helps to govern the relationships between its bodies as well as between member states. Its daily importance is evident to anyone who visits the organisation from the moment they apply for their credentials.

Two annual events at the UN demonstrate par excellence its importance; the general debate of the UN General Assembly (known to insiders as ‘UNGA’), which attracts scores of heads of state and government to New York each September, and – less well-known – the annual retreat of the Security Council, organised by the Strategic Planning Unit in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG).


Dr Abiodun Williams, 
President of The Hague Institute for Global Justice

he UN General Assembly General Debate
Every autumn, New York is the setting for the largest annual gathering of heads of state and government (in 2015, some 150 world leaders attended). For the United Nations Secretariat, the City of New York, and the government of the United States, this presents a gargantuan organisational undertaking, which is as much about protocol as it is about logistics.

For the host city, and its resigned inhabitants, the annual meeting presents problems of its own. Working closely with local authorities and private businesses, the protocol offfijice of the UN Secretariat must contend with issues as varied as hotel reservations (even in a city as gilded as New York, there are only so many presidential suites), motorcade management, and security.

On the floor of the General Assembly, the speaking order must be decided, and (after speeches by Brazil, awarded this honour in perpetuity in 1947, and the United States, as host country) is subject to considerations around the level of representation, preference, and other criteria such as geographic balance. Nominally limited to fifteen minutes in length, the general debate’s tendency to overrun demonstrates the pragmatic flexibility of protocol. While speakers are encouraged to be concise, in order to enable all the world’s nations to have their say, the imprudence of calling time on a speech by a head of state is keenly appreciated.

It falls to the head of protocol to escort each speaker from an anteroom to the General Assembly’s famous podium (in this respect, the role – whose occupant is privy to many an unguarded moment with a world leader – is one that offfers an unparalleled insight into global politics). Another challenge is the organisation of the lunch that follows the opening of the general debate. In few other circumstances do 150 heads of state and government dine together.

Within the office of the UN secretary-general, there are other issues to consider. With a limited amount of time, decisions must be taken about which world leaders will be afforded the opportunity to meet the secretary-general in person. What should the duration of these meetings be, and what will be on the agenda? It is the EOSG that must manage these thorny questions, arranging meetings with around eighty delegations, and preparing talking points to guide the secretary-general’s discussion with each dignitary (while taking care to ensure that the secretary-general is provided with the correct speaking notes for a given meeting!). These documents are prepared with the assistance of various UN departments, particularly the Department for Political Affairs (DPA) and the Department for Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO).

Protocol is not merely the rules governing precedence and procedure that are published in a widely-circulated manual,4 important as these rubrics are. At the general debate, it is often the meetings on the sidelines of the formal session that allow for serious discussion of key global issues. In this sense, it is the formality of the UN’s official sessions, including the sometimes dry speeches from the General Assembly floor, that creates an environment where seemingly random interactions can occur. It is, of course, the protocol office that makes these ‘chance occurrences’ possible, for example by setting up strategically placed cubicles in which high-level tete-a-tetes might take place.

UN Security Council Retreats
Less celebrated than the general debate, but potentially as consequential, is the annual retreat of the Security Council, hosted by the UN secretary general and organised by the strategic planning unit in his executive office. The relationship between the secretary-general and the Security Council is a delicate and intricate one that must abide by time-honoured traditions while treading new ground.5 The secretary-general must consider how he manages relations with the five permanent members of the Council (any of whom, if he is serving his first term, could use their veto power to scupper his chances of re-election), as well as the ten elected members who are sensitive to any suggestion of hierarchy within the Council. 
The relationship between the secretary-general and the Security Council is generally governed by formal rules, such as those pertaining to communications. The secretary-general is expected, for example, to transmit communications to the president of the Council (a role that rotates on a monthly basis among the body’s members), who will then consult with other missions and report back on behalf of the whole. 
The annual retreat, which has taken place ‘off-campus’ at Greentree or Pocantico near New York City, is an informal event with the dual aim of building rapport and addressing intractable issues outside the more inflexible environment of Turtle Bay. To engender a more relaxed atmosphere, the permanent representatives who serve on the Council are invited to attend the retreat with their spouses (experience suggests that this puts even the most senior diplomats on their best behaviour). This, together with a more casual dress code, creates an informal atmosphere that has proved conducive to productive discussions. 
It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that ‘real business’ is not transacted in settings which are informal and, therefore, devoid of protocol. In the organisation of retreats such as that of the Security Council, UN staff must still consider who should sit where at working sessions or dinners, and who should be housed closest to the secretary general. Occasionally, practical considerations override assumptions about precedence. What to do, for example, when the bed in the room adjacent to the secretary-general’s cannot accommodate the impressive dimensions of an ambassador from an important country? A habitual misunderstanding about the application of protocol is the assumption of its rigidity; in reality, protocol is equally about knowing when to break established rules in the name of good sense. In this case, the ambassador was happily housed in a nearby cottage. 
The contrast between traditional communications from the UN secretary-general to the Security Council and the informality of the annual retreat shows how practices evolve in modern diplomacy, but it also evinces a critical aspect of protocol: predictability. Whether formal or informal, predictable rules of expected behaviour avoid confusion and awkwardness, allowing important discussions to take place.

Protocol in Think Tanks

In contrast to the established procedures of an international organisation like the United Nations, think tanks are in a position to make their own rules. As new actors on the international stage, serving decision-makers by producing innovative research, convening experts, and training practitioners, think tanks and other non-governmental organisations are increasingly important players in global politics.

While think tanks need not adopt the protocol practices of established organisations, they are well-served, however, by knowing when these rules are expected to be applied and where creative abandonment of traditional protocol may serve the purposes of innovation. Where think tanks serve a convening role not entirely diffferent from that of the United Nations itself, it would, for example, be imprudent to cast aside aspects of protocol the utility of which has been discussed above.

Innovation may nevertheless be necessary. Often, think tanks are called upon to convene various actors such as government officials, academics, civil society representatives, and businesspeople. Whereas the UN’s understanding on protocol is fundamentally predicated on interaction between diplomats, albeit from very diffferent cultures, think tanks have the added challenge of fostering dialogue between agents of entirely diffferent professions. This carries risks. Many blockages in policy implementation have resulted from civil servants and private sector contractors failing to ‘speak the same language.

Given the multidimensional aspects of most contemporary policy problems, inter-sectoral collaboration is often necessary. It is often think tanks that can provide the neutral space for such discussions to take place, and they must correspondingly facilitate discussions by making clear expected rules of conduct, such as the Chatham House Rule, which allows participants to recount others’ observations from a given meeting without citing particular individuals. 6

Think tanks are often associated with effforts to open new channels for communication between actors whose diplomatic interactions may be stymied. Whereas ‘Track 1’ diplomacy covers formal negotiations between official actors, ‘Track 2’ diplomacy convenes non-official actors such as civil society or religious leaders to build relationships and confidence.

‘Track 1.5’ effforts can combine official and non-official actors. 7 It may be supposed that such initiatives are inherently less formal than traditional processes, for example those convened by the United Nations. In reality, whatever the constellation of actors being convened, predictable rules of behaviour are still required to facilitate meaningful discussion.

Recent dialogues at The Hague Institute for Global Justice illustrate this reality. A mediation between two parties to a conflict over a technical issue still required careful consideration of delegation composition, speaking time, and other such factors. Similarly, two landmark conferences on the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica, which brought together contemporary decision-makers to consider lessons learned, may have been ‘informal’ in terms of dress, but the meetings were still necessarily governed by predictable processes pertaining to agendas and speaking rights.

Where think tanks interact with established institutions, they can certainly promote innovation. At the same time, established rules of protocol – such as the greetings offfered to a visiting dignitary who may be speaking from a think tank’s stage – ought not to be overlooked. The challenge for think tanks is to demonstrate their added value and flexibility while also adapting to the requirements intrinsic to international politics.

The world today is a networked one in which various actors collaborate to achieve desired outcomes. These actors may communicate horizontally across national boundaries, and it can often seem that communities such as lawyers, diplomats, or aid workers have more in common with each other than with those in diffferent sectors, even within their own countries (these connections are deemed ‘epistemic’ in the literature 8).

It is the role of think tanks to bring such actors together and to help them understand one another. Whereas ‘speaking the same language’ was once the job of UN interpreters, today it is equally about forging mutual understanding between representatives of diffferent kinds of organisations.


The diversification and decentralisation of international relations have created new challenges for those charged with implementing protocol, but they have also presented an opportunity to reveal its natural flexibility. Diplomacy is increasingly conducted by representatives of different sectors and communities, but this does not negate the need for predictability in their interactions. If anything, the need for clear ‘rules of the game’ for interaction between individuals has never been greater.

It would also be wrong to assume that new actors on the world stage are innovators whereas traditional institutions are rigid, and therefore irrelevant. The retreats of the Security Council show that old organisations can develop new ways of achieving their aims, just as the application of traditional diplomatic protocol by think tanks and NGOs shows that they are adopting successful practices at the same time as they blaze a new path.

That conventional rules of international politics have not been jettisoned underlines that these expected codes of behaviour are not about tradition for its own sake. Instead, they enable diplomats to show respect to each other and to anticipate the way in which others will behave. Far from inhibiting fruitful dialogue, it is protocol that allows it to take place.

Dr Abiodun Williams 
Dr Abiodun Williams is the President of The Hague Institute for Global Justice and a noted academic in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and conflict management. From 2008 to 2012 he served at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, fijirst as vice president of the Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention, and later as senior vice president of the Center for Conflict Management. Prior to joining USIP, Williams served as director of strategic planning for United Nations Secretaries-General Ban Ki-moon and Kofiji Annan. From 1994 to 2000 he served in three peacekeeping operations in Macedonia, Haiti, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as special assistant to the special representative of the secretary-general, and political and humanitarian affairs officer. He has held faculty appointments at Georgetown, Rochester, and Tufts Universities.

4 See
5 See Manuel Frohlich and Abi Williams (eds.), The UN Secretary-General and the Security
Council: A Dynamic Relationship (Oxford: forthcoming, 2016).
8 See, for example, Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: 2004)

This article is part of the new book ‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’ by the former Master of Ceremonies of H.M. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Gilbert Monod de Froideville and the head of protocol of the city of The Hague, Mark Verheul. 
Order the book now or follow a training by the writers of this book. 
Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Coming soon: An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol

Coming soon: An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol in 272 pages by Gilbert Monod de Froideville​ and Mark Verheul​, available from 20 April 2016. 

‘An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol’ is a new book written by the former Master of Ceremonies of H.M. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Gilbert Monod de Froideville and the head of protocol of the city of The Hague, Mark Verheul. This unique book describes the applications of protocol in several countries. In the book you will also find contributions by among others Dame Rosalyn Higgins and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. The preface is written by H.R.H. Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme.

Although modern life grows increasingly casual, in many sectors, protocol still reigns supreme. An Expert’s Guide to International Protocol offers an overview of its associated practices, including those found within the context of diplomatic relations and the business world. Focusing on a wide range of countries and cultures, the book covers topics like seating arrangements, the history and use of flags, ceremonies, invitations and dress codes, and gifts and decorations. Throughout, influential diplomatic, business, cultural, and sports figures share their own experiences with protocols around the world.

Order now (now with a 19% discount):

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Het nieuwe boek van Jan Jaap van Weering heet ‘Distinguised, Look At….’

Zakelijke (Internationale) Etiquette 

& Omgangsvormen

Jan Jaap
In het boek zijn luchtig geschreven artikelen gebundeld, die eerder zijn gepubliceerd in Het Financieele Dagblad en op de website FD Entrepreneur.
De artikelen zijn aangevuld met onderwerpen van belang voor internationaal zaken doen. Verder staan in het boek interviews en waardevolle adviezen hoe u zich beter kunt manifesteren op het gebied van zakelijke etiquette.
De do’s & don’ts zijn direct in de praktijk toepasbaar. Bovendien zijn de anekdotes herkenbaar en daardoor leerzaam.
Meer informatie: klik hier
Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.

Eating with your hands in a restaurant is now acceptable, etiquette experts say

Etiquette experts say it’s acceptable in restaurants (but don’t lick them clean)

  • – Etiquette experts release guide to eating with one’s hands
  • – Includes tips such as ‘don’t like your fingers clean’ and ‘don’t hunch over your plate’
  • – Aim is to update ‘outdated’ table etiquette for modern dining tastes

Read this article @

Choose another article of your interest in the blog archive in the right column. Or scroll further down for books about protocol, interesting links, articles about protocol and protocol related tweets.