Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Digital diplomacy

Digital diplomacy refers to the deployment of digital technologies, including the internet, social media platforms, and information and communication tools, by governments, diplomats, and international organizations to pursue foreign policy goals, engage foreign publics, and manage international relations.^[1]^[2] This practice emerged in the late 1990s with early adoption of email and official websites for consular services and information dissemination, evolving rapidly after 2010 with the proliferation of platforms like Twitter (now X) and Facebook, which enabled real-time, unmediated communication between diplomats and global audiences.^[3]^[4] The core mechanisms of digital diplomacy include public diplomacy efforts to shape narratives and build soft power through targeted content, relational diplomacy via direct interactions on social media, and data-driven analysis of online trends to inform policy decisions.^[1]^[5] It has achieved notable successes, such as accelerating crisis response—exemplified by coordinated online campaigns during health emergencies—and expanding diplomatic reach to non-state actors and diaspora communities without physical presence.^[6]^[7] For instance, states like the United Arab Emirates have leveraged high-level officials' online activity to amplify economic and cultural messaging, contributing to measurable gains in international perception.^[8] However, digital diplomacy introduces significant controversies, including heightened risks of disinformation propagation, where state actors deploy bots and coordinated narratives to influence elections or sow discord, often evading traditional verification mechanisms.^[9] Cybersecurity vulnerabilities expose diplomatic communications to interception and manipulation, while the platform-dependent nature fosters echo chambers that undermine nuanced dialogue.^[1] Legal ambiguities persist, as conventions like the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations predate digital tools, complicating virtual embassies and remote negotiations.^[10]^[11] Despite these challenges, empirical evidence from peer-reviewed analyses indicates that effective digital strategies correlate with improved foreign policy outcomes, provided they integrate robust verification and adaptive protocols.^[12]^[13]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Digital diplomacy refers to the practice of employing digital technologies, including the internet, social media platforms, and information and communication technologies (ICTs), by governments, diplomats, and international organizations to advance foreign policy objectives, conduct outreach, and manage international relations.^[2] This encompasses activities such as disseminating official narratives, engaging foreign publics directly, and facilitating virtual diplomatic interactions, often through tools like Twitter (now X), official websites, and virtual embassies established as early as 2005 by the United States in Second Life.^[13] Unlike narrower concepts like cyber diplomacy, which focuses on internet governance and security norms, digital diplomacy broadly addresses the integration of online methods into core diplomatic functions, including public diplomacy and crisis response.^[1] The scope of digital diplomacy includes both relational practices—such as diplomats using social media for personal branding and bilateral signaling—and institutional strategies, like coordinated government campaigns to shape global perceptions, as seen in the European External Action Service's multilingual Twitter feeds reaching over 1.5 million followers by 2019.^[14] It extends to data-driven analytics for audience targeting and AI-assisted translation for multilingual engagement, but excludes purely domestic digital governance or non-state actor initiatives unless co-opted by official diplomacy.^[15] While it amplifies traditional diplomacy's reach—enabling, for instance, real-time responses during the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings—its boundaries are delimited by persistent needs for offline verification, secure channels for sensitive negotiations, and adaptation to platform algorithms that can amplify or distort messages.^[16] In contrast to conventional diplomacy, which historically depended on in-person meetings, cables, and elite networks formalized post-Westphalia in 1648, digital diplomacy introduces speed, scalability, and public inclusivity, allowing non-elite actors indirect influence via viral content, though empirical studies indicate it supplements rather than supplants face-to-face processes, with only 20-30% of diplomatic communications shifting online by 2020 in major powers.^[17] This evolution reflects causal adaptations to technological affordances, such as network effects reducing communication costs, yet it incurs risks like echo chambers and foreign interference, as documented in cases of state-sponsored disinformation campaigns exceeding 10,000 instances annually by 2022.^[14] Scholarly assessments emphasize its role in hybrid environments, where digital tools enhance but do not redefine sovereignty or treaty-binding commitments inherent to traditional practice.^[16]

Theoretical Frameworks and Distinctions from Traditional Diplomacy

Digital diplomacy draws on constructivist approaches in international relations theory, positing that digital platforms facilitate the co-construction of diplomatic norms and identities through networked interactions among state and non-state actors.^[18] Actor-network theory complements this by modeling diplomacy as dynamic assemblages of human and technological agents, where tools like social media redistribute influence beyond traditional state hierarchies.^[18] Communication theories, including agenda-setting and framing, further underpin analyses of how digital diplomacy shapes public perceptions of foreign policy by prioritizing certain narratives and interpreting events in real time.^[19] Public diplomacy frameworks, rooted in Joseph Nye's concept of soft power, highlight digital tools' role in extending influence via attraction rather than coercion, enabling states to engage global audiences directly for narrative control and relationship-building.^[20] Network analysis provides an empirical lens, quantifying diplomatic effectiveness through metrics like connectivity and centrality in online interactions, as applied to cases such as South Korea's public diplomacy efforts.^[21] These frameworks emphasize adaptation to digital affordances, such as virality and scalability, while critiquing overreliance on metrics that may overlook qualitative shifts in power dynamics.^[22] In contrast to traditional diplomacy's emphasis on formal, bilateral negotiations conducted through hierarchical channels and in-person protocols, digital diplomacy operates in a multidirectional, public sphere that includes non-state actors and leverages real-time digital dissemination for broader reach.^[23] Traditional practices prioritize confidentiality and elite-level bargaining, often mediated by ambassadors and summits, whereas digital variants enable rapid crisis responses and direct engagement with domestic publics abroad, bypassing some gatekeeping functions of legacy media.^[14] ^[24] This shift introduces vulnerabilities like misinformation amplification but enhances transparency and adaptability, as evidenced by comparative studies showing online diplomatic messaging's greater emphasis on relational and explanatory tones over offline counterparts' procedural focus.^[16] Empirical assessments indicate digital approaches complement rather than supplant traditional ones, with hybrid models emerging to mitigate risks such as algorithmic biases in audience targeting.^[25]

Historical Evolution

Early Precursors and Adoption (1990s-2009)

The adoption of digital tools in diplomacy during the 1990s was initially driven by the expansion of internet infrastructure, with diplomats primarily using email for internal coordination to supplant slower telex and cable systems. Secure email adoption accelerated in the mid-1990s, allowing real-time exchanges between embassies and foreign ministries, though bandwidth limitations and security concerns restricted broader application.^[26] By November 1998, the U.S. Department of State issued a strategic plan acknowledging information technology's role, prompted in part by the East Africa embassy bombings that exposed communication gaps, laying groundwork for formalized e-diplomacy initiatives.^[27] The concept of "virtual diplomacy" gained traction in the late 1990s, encompassing online forums and early web-based engagement for conflict resolution and public outreach, reflecting post-Cold War demands for expanded diplomatic representation amid technological optimism.^[26] Foreign ministries began launching official websites around this period to disseminate policy information and consular services, marking a shift toward digital public diplomacy, though content was largely static and one-way.^[28] In June 1993, a UN meeting featured presentations on computers' potential in diplomacy, highlighting early awareness of ICTs for efficiency.^[29] Into the 2000s, institutionalization advanced with dedicated offices and experimental platforms. The U.S. State Department established its Task Force on eDiplomacy in 2002 under Secretary Colin Powell, evolving into the Office of eDiplomacy by focusing on knowledge management and intranets to enhance collaborative reporting.^[27] Under Secretary Condoleezza Rice from 2005, transformational diplomacy emphasized technology integration, including appointments like Jared Cohen in 2006 to explore digital outreach.^[27] Pioneering efforts included Sweden's launch of a virtual embassy in Second Life on May 30, 2007—a replica of its Washington embassy—targeting younger global audiences for cultural promotion and dialogue in the virtual world.^[30]^[31] By 2009, these precursors culminated in structured programs, such as the U.S. formation of digital outreach teams for countering narratives, predating widespread social media use and emphasizing secure, targeted online engagement over mass broadcasting.^[27]^[32] Adoption remained uneven globally, constrained by varying technological access and cultural resistance to digital substitution for face-to-face interactions, yet it established foundational practices for information sharing and crisis response.^[33] The proliferation of social media platforms during the 2010s transformed diplomatic communication, enabling foreign ministries to engage global audiences directly and in real time. Following the Arab Spring uprisings from 2010 to 2012, where platforms like Twitter and Facebook facilitated rapid information dissemination and mobilization, governments recognized social media's potential for monitoring public sentiment and shaping narratives.^[34] Diplomats began using these tools not only for public diplomacy but also for informal Track II dialogues, marking a shift from broadcast-style messaging to interactive engagement.^[35] A landmark assessment came in 2013 with the Twiplomacy study by Burson-Marsteller, which analyzed Twitter accounts of 193 United Nations member states and found that 153 heads of state or government and foreign ministers maintained verified profiles, representing 79% adoption among world leaders.^[36] However, the study highlighted limited reciprocity, with only 506 mutual follows among elite diplomatic accounts, indicating siloed rather than networked interactions.^[36] This era saw the United States Department of State lead institutional efforts, establishing the Digital Outreach Team around 2010 to counter extremist narratives online and launching initiatives like DipNote for official blogging.^[32] Institutionalization accelerated as ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) integrated digital strategies into core operations. By the early 2010s, numerous MFAs invested in dedicated digital infrastructure, including social media monitoring units and training programs for diplomats to navigate platforms effectively.^[37] For instance, the U.S. State Department expanded e-diplomacy practices, incorporating tools for crisis response and public engagement, while European counterparts like Sweden's MFA developed guidelines for Twitter use in 2011 to foster transparent communication.^[38] These developments reflected a broader adaptation, with over 120 countries operating government Twitter accounts by 2013, though effectiveness varied due to challenges like algorithmic biases and state-controlled media environments in authoritarian regimes.^[36]^[35] By the late 2010s, digital diplomacy had become routinized, with MFAs hiring specialists in data analytics and content strategy to amplify foreign policy messages. The period also witnessed hybrid approaches, blending online and offline tactics, as seen in multilateral forums where social media complemented traditional negotiations.^[39] Empirical evaluations, such as those from the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, noted successes in niche areas like countering disinformation but cautioned against overreliance on unverified metrics like retweets for measuring influence.^[14] This institutional embedding laid groundwork for more advanced applications, though persistent issues like echo chambers and foreign interference underscored the need for rigorous verification in digital outreach.^[40]

Contemporary Developments (2020-2025)

The COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onward compelled ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) worldwide to intensify digital diplomacy, substituting in-person engagements with virtual platforms for crisis communication and public outreach.^[41] For instance, MFAs leveraged social media to disseminate health guidelines, coordinate repatriation efforts, and counter misinformation, with Twitter (now X) enabling real-time updates that reached billions.^[42] This shift marked a departure from supplementary tools to core diplomatic functions, as evidenced by increased online summits like the G20 virtual meetings in 2020, which facilitated policy coordination amid travel restrictions.^[43] However, challenges emerged in verifying information authenticity, amplifying risks of digital echo chambers where state narratives competed without traditional verification mechanisms.^[44] The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine exemplified digital diplomacy's role in hybrid warfare, with Ukraine employing social media platforms such as Telegram and Twitter for real-time battlefield reporting, international appeals, and mobilization of global support.^[45] Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, amassed millions of followers to shape narratives, secure military aid totaling over $100 billion from Western allies by 2025, and appoint "digital ambassadors" to engage diaspora communities.^[46] In contrast, Russian digital efforts focused on state-controlled channels to justify operations domestically while facing platform bans in the West, highlighting asymmetries in reach and credibility amid cyberattacks that disrupted Ukrainian infrastructure.^[47] Cybersecurity became integral, with Ukraine's International Cybersecurity Center aiding diplomatic advocacy for sanctions, demonstrating how digital tools amplified Track II engagements and public pressure on neutral states.^[48] From 2023 to 2025, artificial intelligence (AI) emerged as a transformative element in digital diplomacy, enabling predictive analytics for geopolitical forecasting and automated content moderation in multilateral forums.^[49] The U.S. Department of State issued its Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Strategy in 2024, outlining responsible AI use for data-driven decision-making in negotiations, such as analyzing trade dispute patterns.^[50] European initiatives, including the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council, advanced AI governance norms to counter authoritarian models, with over 20 bilateral agreements signed by 2025 addressing AI ethics in diplomacy.^[51] Yet, AI's dual-use nature raised concerns, as generative tools fueled disinformation campaigns, prompting calls for international protocols at UN forums where adoption lagged due to U.S.-China rivalries.^[52] Broader trends included heightened focus on data governance and cybersecurity diplomacy, with the EU expanding programs like BELLA for digital connectivity in the Global South by 2025, aiming to bridge infrastructure gaps affecting 2.6 billion people offline.^[53] Tech diplomacy forums, such as World Economic Forum discussions, emphasized inclusive stakeholder models to mitigate digital divides, though empirical data showed persistent inequities in AI access favoring established powers.^[54] These developments underscored digital diplomacy's evolution from reactive tool to strategic imperative, constrained by verification deficits and platform dependencies.^[1]

Tools and Technologies

Social media platforms have become central to digital diplomacy, enabling governments and diplomats to engage global audiences in real time, disseminate policy positions, and counter narratives directly. Platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube facilitate public diplomacy by allowing foreign ministries to broadcast updates, interact with citizens, and shape perceptions without traditional media intermediaries.^[1]^[55] For instance, the U.S. State Department maintains a significant presence on Facebook, with approximately 3.6 million followers across its accounts as of 2024, underscoring the scale of audience reach for official communications.^[56] X, in particular, supports rapid, unfiltered exchanges, as seen in its use during the COVID-19 pandemic for swift state-to-state interactions on health policies and border measures.^[57] Chinese diplomats have leveraged X to promote Beijing's viewpoints and rebut criticisms, while entities like the Taliban have employed it for public diplomacy messaging strategies post-2021.^[6]^[58] These platforms differ in application: X excels in micro-diplomacy through short-form posts and hashtags for issue amplification, fostering interactive foreign policy discussions, whereas Facebook and Instagram support multimedia content for broader cultural and narrative outreach.^[55]^[17] The U.S. Department of State integrates social media into its public diplomacy strategy via structured guidelines, emphasizing macro-level planning with elements like audience analysis, benchmarking, content creation, distribution, evaluation, and feedback to maximize engagement.^[59]^[60] However, adoption varies by context; for example, Greece's foreign ministry has transitioned to X for digital diplomacy reforms, reflecting principles of transparency and responsiveness in official tweeting.^[61] Messaging applications complement social media by enabling more discreet, encrypted communications suited to track-II diplomacy and crisis coordination. WhatsApp and Telegram are frequently used by diplomats for forming private groups to share resources and negotiate informally, as evidenced in Middle Eastern back-channel talks between Saudi Arabian and Israeli officials.^[62]^[63] These apps' end-to-end encryption allows freer participation in multilateral exchanges, though they raise security concerns; the U.S. Bureau of Diplomatic Security lists WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram among unapproved tools for foreign travel due to potential vulnerabilities.^[64] Diplomats often resort to them for practicality in instant negotiations, bypassing formal channels, but this practice has facilitated disinformation propagation in political contexts.^[65]^[66] Recent incidents, such as Israeli diplomats being added to WhatsApp groups operated from Iran in 2025, highlight risks of unauthorized access and interference.^[67] Overall, while social media prioritizes public visibility, messaging apps emphasize targeted, low-visibility interactions, forming the dual backbone of digital diplomatic tooling.

Advanced Digital Instruments: AI, Data Analytics, and Cybersecurity Tools

Artificial intelligence (AI) enhances digital diplomacy through automated analysis of vast datasets, enabling diplomats to predict geopolitical trends and tailor public engagement strategies. Machine learning algorithms process social media sentiment in real-time, as seen in applications for monitoring public opinion during crises, where AI identifies shifts in narratives across millions of posts.^[68] The U.S. Department of State, in its October 2025 AI strategy, outlined equipping over 75,000 employees with AI tools for tasks like drafting communications and simulating negotiation outcomes, aiming to improve decision-making efficiency by 30-50% in pilot programs.^[69] ^[70] Predictive AI models, applied in case studies of consular services and conflict prevention, forecast migration patterns or escalation risks by analyzing historical data and current indicators, with accuracy rates exceeding 80% in controlled diplomatic simulations.^[49] However, reliance on AI raises concerns over algorithmic biases, as proprietary models trained on uneven global data may skew interpretations toward Western perspectives, necessitating human oversight for causal validation.^[71] Data analytics tools aggregate and interpret big data from online, sensor, and satellite sources to support evidence-based diplomatic positioning. In practice, analytics platforms enable the quantification of foreign sentiments, such as tracking anti-Western narratives in 150+ countries via natural language processing of 10 billion+ annual social media interactions.^[72] The U.S. State Department integrates data analytics into its foreign policy toolkit, using dashboards to monitor real-time emergency situations like natural disasters, informing aid allocation decisions that reduced response times by up to 40% in 2023-2024 operations.^[73] European Union diplomats employ open-source intelligence (OSINT) analytics to map actor behaviors in cyberspace, processing terabytes of data for insights into hybrid threats, as demonstrated in coordinated responses under the EU's digital strategy frameworks.^[74] These tools facilitate network analysis of influence campaigns, revealing interconnections among state actors and proxies, though data quality varies due to platform restrictions and deliberate disinformation, requiring cross-verification with ground intelligence.^[75] Cybersecurity tools protect digital diplomatic channels and enable offensive-defensive postures against state-sponsored threats. Encryption protocols and secure communication platforms, such as those mandated by the U.S. International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy of 2021 (updated through 2025), safeguard bilateral talks from interception, with quantum-resistant algorithms deployed in 20+ high-risk embassies by mid-2025.^[76] The EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox, operational since 2017 and invoked in 15+ incidents by 2024, deploys tools like public attribution of attacks and targeted sanctions, as in responses to ransomware campaigns linked to non-EU actors affecting diplomatic infrastructure.^[77] Intrusion detection systems integrated into diplomatic networks use AI-driven anomaly detection to counter advanced persistent threats, blocking over 1.2 million attempts annually across NATO-aligned foreign ministries in 2024 reports.^[78] These instruments extend to norm-building, with bilateral agreements on information sharing reducing attribution times from months to days, though asymmetric capabilities—where advanced states dominate tool development—exacerbate vulnerabilities for smaller nations.^[79]

Strategies and Applications

Public Diplomacy and Narrative Shaping

Public diplomacy within digital diplomacy encompasses government efforts to communicate with foreign audiences via online platforms, promoting national interests and countering opposing narratives through targeted content and engagement.^[80] This includes real-time dissemination of policy positions, cultural promotion, and disinformation rebuttals, distinguishing it from traditional broadcasting by enabling interactive, audience-driven exchanges.^[81] In the United States, the Department of State's public diplomacy integrates digital tools extensively, with the Bureau of Global Public Affairs managing over 1,000 social media accounts reaching 114 million followers in 2023 to shape perceptions of U.S. policies.^[82] The Global Engagement Center advanced narrative control through initiatives like the "Cat Park" disinformation-training game, played over 400,000 times in 18 languages, and reports on Russian activities that garnered up to 3.5 million views.^[82] Similarly, campaigns on Xinjiang human rights issues achieved 150 million impressions across Europe, highlighting efforts to influence global discourse on specific geopolitical concerns.^[82] The U.S. Agency for Global Media complemented these with 3,000 hours of weekly programming in 63 languages, reaching over 400 million people digitally.^[82] Ukraine's wartime public diplomacy exemplifies narrative shaping via digital means, with officials using social media and videos to present a "strategic self" emphasizing resilience and victimhood, influencing international aid and sanctions against Russia since the 2022 invasion.^[83] Campaigns like "Russia's Famine Games" countered Moscow's narratives on Ukrainian food exports, leveraging platforms for visual storytelling and real-time intelligence disclosure to bolster global support.^[84] ^[85] In contrast, Russia's digital efforts focused on Telegram and state-affiliated outlets to legitimize operations through strategic narratives denying aggression and portraying NATO expansion as provocation, though these faced challenges in penetrating Western audiences.^[86] ^[45] China's "wolf warrior" approach, intensifying around 2020, deploys assertive digital rhetoric on platforms like Twitter to defend sovereignty and assert systemic advantages, particularly during COVID-19 and territorial disputes.^[87] Studies indicate that positive framing in these messages can enhance perceptions amid conflicts, yet aggressive tones often yield lower engagement compared to cooperative narratives.^[88] ^[89] Effectiveness varies, with audience factors like prior views influencing reception, underscoring limits in universal narrative dominance.^[90] Assessing these strategies relies on metrics like impressions (e.g., U.S. efforts exceeding 700 million in 2024) and views, but true impact on foreign attitudes demands beyond engagement data, as resonance with core beliefs proves harder to quantify than surface interactions.^[91] ^[92] Empirical evaluations highlight that while digital tools amplify reach, causal links to policy outcomes remain contested, often requiring integration with offline diplomacy.^[93]

Crisis Response and Track II Engagement

In crisis response, digital diplomacy enables foreign ministries to disseminate real-time information, coordinate with stakeholders, and mitigate misinformation through platforms like Twitter and official websites. During the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020, multiple foreign ministries, including those in Europe, utilized social media for public health advisories and narrative control, with the European Union posting over 1,000 Twitter updates between January and June 2020 to restore reputational damage from initial pandemic handling.^[94] Similarly, AI-assisted tools supported consular services by automating resource allocation for evacuations and citizen alerts, as implemented by several governments during the 2020-2021 pandemic peaks, reducing response times from days to hours in cases like Australia's use of chatbots for stranded nationals.^[95] Cyber crises have further highlighted digital tools' role in diplomatic signaling and deterrence. The United States established a dedicated communications channel in 2013 to address cyberspace incidents bilaterally, facilitating de-escalation talks with adversaries like China and Russia through secure digital exchanges that prevented escalation in incidents such as the 2015 Office of Personnel Management breach.^[96] In the 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO and allied diplomats employed encrypted messaging apps and public social media threads for synchronized crisis messaging, reaching millions and countering propaganda narratives within hours of events like the Bucha discoveries in April 2022, though effectiveness varied due to platform algorithms favoring viral content over verified diplomacy.^[97] Track II engagement, involving unofficial actors such as academics and NGOs, has adapted digital platforms to enable informal dialogues in protracted conflicts, bypassing rigid official channels. Virtual formats proliferated post-2020, with organizations like the National Committee on American Foreign Policy conducting over 50 online Track II sessions on Asia-Pacific tensions between 2021 and 2024 via Zoom and secure portals, allowing participants from adversarial states to explore de-escalation without governmental endorsement.^[98] Social media has blurred Track I and II boundaries, as seen in 2018 U.S.-North Korea backchannels where intermediaries used Twitter direct messages to arrange summits, though such methods risk interception and lack formal accountability.^[99] These engagements complement crisis response by building trust incrementally; for example, Track II digital forums on Iran nuclear issues since 2018 have produced non-binding recommendations adopted in official talks, per analyses of U.S.-Iran relations.^[100] However, digital Track II faces challenges like unequal access in low-connectivity regions and verification issues, limiting impact in acute crises.^[101]

Multilateral and Bilateral Digital Negotiations

Digital negotiations in diplomacy encompass the use of videoconferencing platforms, secure digital channels, and collaborative online tools to conduct talks among multiple states (multilateral) or two states (bilateral), often supplementing or replacing traditional in-person meetings. This approach expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling continuity in diplomatic processes amid travel restrictions, as evidenced by the G20's Extraordinary Virtual Leaders' Summit on March 26, 2020, where leaders from 20 major economies coordinated fiscal responses, committing to over $5 trillion in global stimulus to mitigate economic fallout.^[102] The Riyadh G20 Summit on November 21-22, 2020, further exemplified multilateral virtual engagement, focusing on debt relief for low-income countries and health cooperation, though outcomes were critiqued for lacking enforceable mechanisms due to the format's constraints on spontaneous sidebar discussions.^[103] In multilateral settings like the World Trade Organization (WTO), digital negotiations facilitated progress on e-commerce rules; for instance, talks on digital services taxes shifted to virtual formats in 2020, adhering to year-end deadlines through scheduled online sessions that included over 130 members.^[104] These efforts stabilized provisions like the moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, extended through 2026, but highlighted disparities, with developing nations citing limited digital infrastructure as a barrier to full participation.^[105] Bilateral examples include the U.S.-China virtual summit between President Joe Biden and President Xi Jinping on November 15, 2021, which lasted about 3.5 hours and addressed climate cooperation, Taiwan tensions, and technology restrictions, establishing working groups but achieving no breakthroughs on core disputes.^[106]^[107] Hybrid models, blending virtual and physical elements, have since predominated, as virtual formats complement but do not fully replicate in-person dynamics essential for trust-building.^[39] Challenges persist, including diminished non-verbal cue interpretation, which impedes nuanced bargaining, and "Zoom fatigue" that shortens effective session durations compared to face-to-face marathons.^[108] Technical issues like connectivity failures and cybersecurity risks further erode confidence, particularly in sensitive bilateral talks where information sharing relies on verified interpersonal rapport absent in digital mediums.^[109] Empirical reviews of pandemic-era negotiations indicate higher efficiency for procedural agreements but lower success rates for high-stakes pacts, often necessitating hybrid follow-ups to resolve impasses.^[110]

Empirical Assessments

Documented Successes and Case Studies

The U.S. State Department's Digital Outreach Team (DOT), established in 2009, exemplifies early successes in digital public diplomacy by targeting Arabic-speaking online communities to clarify U.S. foreign policy and refute misinformation following President Obama's Cairo speech. Operating on platforms like alsaha.com and maktoob.com, the team of six Arabic specialists generated 181 posts across 30 discussion threads from May to December 2009, eliciting 459 user responses and emphasizing logical argumentation in 93.92% of interventions. By 2012, associated content achieved over 700,000 YouTube views for 129 Arabic-language videos and 14,395 Facebook likes, demonstrating measurable audience reach in countering extremist narratives among passive online "lurkers."^[111] Estonia's integration of digital infrastructure into diplomacy has yielded tangible interoperability gains, particularly through the X-Road data exchange platform federated with Nordic partners including Finland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Åland Islands since the establishment of the Nordic Institute for Interoperability Solutions (NIIS). This system enables secure cross-border access to public services, such as medical records and legal contracts, bolstering Estonia's soft power and Nordic-Baltic alignment amid geopolitical tensions with Russia. Empirical benefits include annual GDP savings of approximately 2% from digital signatures and e-voting costs reduced to one-twentieth of traditional methods, with over 99% of public services digitized by 2024.^[112] Israel's Foreign Ministry has documented efficacy in crisis response via digital channels, notably during the April 2015 Nepal earthquake, where real-time social media coordination facilitated consular aid and information sharing for affected citizens, contributing to broader global reach in ad hoc diplomacy. Such efforts, analyzed in strategic reviews, highlight digital tools' role in engaging millions through dialogue-oriented campaigns, with sentiment analysis and engagement metrics underscoring shifts in international perceptions during conflicts like Operation Protective Edge in 2014.^[113]

Failures, Ineffectiveness, and Quantifiable Shortfalls

Digital diplomacy initiatives have frequently demonstrated limited impact in altering foreign public opinion or achieving strategic communication goals, as evidenced by empirical analyses of engagement metrics and campaign outcomes. A study of United Nations Twitter activity revealed extremely low engagement rates, with the @UN account averaging 0.005% interaction per tweet across 26 posts examined, far below benchmarks for effective social media outreach.^[114] Similarly, broader assessments of multilateral digital efforts report average engagement rates as low as 0.017%, indicating that content often fails to penetrate audience echo chambers or compete with non-state actors.^[114] Specific campaigns underscore these shortfalls. China's Twitter-based "Twiplomacy" during the early COVID-19 pandemic aimed to counter Western narratives on the virus's origins but largely failed, as frame contestation efforts were overshadowed by domestic censorship constraints and international skepticism, resulting in minimal shifts in global discourse.^[115] In Nigeria, the 2014 #BringBackOurGirls viral campaign, supported by diplomatic social media pushes from multiple governments, achieved high visibility but did not secure the hostages' release or sustain long-term policy influence, highlighting how transient digital attention rarely translates to tangible diplomatic results.^[8] Quantifiable resource inefficiencies further reveal ineffectiveness. Public diplomacy evaluations note high costs for digital tools—often exceeding traditional methods—without proportional returns in perception changes, as metrics like follower growth or retweets correlate poorly with behavioral shifts abroad.^[116] Structural issues, such as foreign ministries' reliance on broadcasting pre-packaged content rather than interactive engagement, exacerbate this; Australian diplomatic assessments from 2019 identified a pattern of "failure to address difficult issues" on platforms, leading to audience disinterest and algorithmic deprioritization.^[117] In Africa, Ethiopia's digital diplomacy rollout faced implementation gaps, with low adoption rates among diplomats contributing to negligible influence on regional narratives despite infrastructure investments.^[118] These patterns reflect causal limitations: digital platforms amplify volume over depth, where state messages compete unsuccessfully against private influencers and disinformation, yielding measurable shortfalls in metrics like sentiment analysis scores post-campaign, which often show no net positive deviation from baselines.^[119] Overall, while digital tools enable reach, their diplomatic efficacy remains constrained by unverifiable attribution of outcomes and persistent underperformance in contested information environments.^[120]

Challenges and Risks

Technical Vulnerabilities and Disinformation Propagation

Digital diplomatic platforms, including social media accounts and encrypted messaging systems used by state actors, are susceptible to cyberattacks such as phishing, malware injection, and account hijacking, which can compromise sensitive communications and enable unauthorized access to policy deliberations.^[1] For instance, in July 2020, hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Twitter's internal tools to seize control of high-profile verified accounts, including those of former U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, and several foreign diplomats, posting fraudulent Bitcoin solicitations that exposed the fragility of platform authentication for official diplomatic outreach.^[1] Similarly, state-sponsored groups have targeted diplomatic email infrastructures; an Iran-affiliated actor conducted spear-phishing operations against over 100 embassy and consulate email systems globally as of September 2025, potentially leaking negotiation details or enabling impersonation in digital exchanges.^[121] These vulnerabilities facilitate disinformation propagation by allowing adversaries to insert false narratives into official channels or mimic credible sources, accelerating the spread of misleading information through algorithmic amplification on platforms like Twitter (now X) and Facebook. State actors, particularly from Russia and China, have leveraged hacked or fabricated accounts to disseminate propaganda that undermines rival diplomatic positions; for example, Russian-linked operations during the 2016 U.S. election involved coordinated disinformation via social media bots and troll farms, reaching millions and eroding public trust in Western foreign policy narratives.^[122] In Southeast Asia, China-affiliated hackers (UNC6384 group) targeted diplomats with malware disguised as software updates in early 2025, aiming to exfiltrate data for subsequent influence campaigns that propagate state-favorable misinformation on regional disputes like the South China Sea.^[123] Propagation dynamics resemble epidemiological models, where initial "infections" from authenticated breaches seed viral diffusion, with echo chambers and retweet networks amplifying reach by factors of 10-100 times compared to organic content, as simulated in network analyses of social media diplomacy.^[124] Attribution challenges exacerbate risks, as attackers often use proxy servers and deepfakes to obscure origins, complicating diplomatic responses and allowing disinformation to persist; the 2022 Iranian destructive cyber operation against Albania's government systems, claimed by "HomeLand Justice," combined data destruction with narrative flooding to portray the victim state as unstable, influencing international perceptions ahead of NATO summits.^[125] Empirical studies indicate that such incidents reduce the efficacy of digital public diplomacy by 20-30% in affected regions, measured via sentiment analysis of online discourse, as audiences increasingly question official posts amid pervasive fakes.^[126] Mitigation efforts, including multi-factor authentication and AI-driven anomaly detection, remain inconsistent across platforms, leaving smaller diplomatic entities particularly exposed to hybrid threats where technical breaches directly fuel informational warfare.^[127]

Ethical Dilemmas: Privacy, Accountability, and Sovereignty

Digital diplomacy's reliance on data analytics, social media monitoring, and cyber tools introduces profound ethical tensions, particularly in balancing operational efficacy with fundamental rights and state imperatives. Privacy concerns arise from extensive surveillance and data harvesting practices, where diplomats and foreign ministries aggregate citizen data to gauge public sentiment or counter narratives, often without robust consent mechanisms. For instance, the 2021 Pegasus spyware scandal revealed state actors using commercial tools to target diplomats' devices, compromising confidential communications and underscoring the vulnerability of personal data in diplomatic networks.^[128] Similarly, authoritarian regimes like Iran have employed biometric tracking and forced platform data-sharing to monitor dissent, eroding individual privacy while advancing foreign policy goals through digital control.^[129] Accountability challenges stem from the opacity of digital actions and the difficulty in attributing responsibility amid anonymity and algorithmic decision-making. Cyber espionage incidents, such as the 2016 Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee, illustrate how unattributable interference complicates diplomatic recourse and erodes trust in international discourse.^[128] In AI-driven diplomacy, unresolved liability for "machine errors"—such as biased outputs or unintended escalations—shifts blame from human operators to systems, as highlighted by French analyses emphasizing the need for human oversight under frameworks like the 1978 Act on IT and Data Files.^[130] Platforms exacerbate this by inconsistently moderating harmful content; for example, Telegram and Meta have faced criticism for inadequate responses to state-sponsored disinformation, leaving diplomats without reliable accountability mechanisms in hybrid threats.^[129] Sovereignty dilemmas intensify as cross-border data flows and foreign tech dependencies undermine national control, prompting assertions of digital autonomy that can fragment global norms. The 2010 WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables exposed tensions between transparency and state secrecy, fueling debates on whether such breaches justify fortified data localization to preserve sovereignty.^[128] Efforts like Iran's national intranet or the EU's Digital Markets Act reflect a post-2010 shift toward neo-mercantilist policies, aiming to reclaim control from U.S.-dominated platforms but risking isolation and reduced interoperability in diplomatic engagements.^[131] While these measures address vulnerabilities to external influence, critics from think tanks note that invoking sovereignty often masks evasion of international human rights obligations, as seen in export controls targeting abuses like those against Uyghurs.^[129] Ultimately, reconciling these imperatives requires frameworks prioritizing verifiable attribution and minimal data intrusion, though geopolitical rivalries hinder consensus.^[130]

Debates on Measurable Impact and Resource Allocation

Scholars and practitioners debate the extent to which digital diplomacy yields measurable diplomatic outcomes, as engagement metrics such as retweets, likes, and follower counts often fail to demonstrate causal links to policy influence or behavioral changes in target audiences.^[132] While tools like sentiment analysis and network mapping have been proposed to assess influence—such as tracking shifts in online discourse following campaigns—these methods struggle with attribution, as external factors like media coverage or offline events confound results.^[22] For instance, a 2021 study argued that digital public diplomacy's impact can be inferred from indirect indicators like amplified narratives, yet empirical validation remains limited, with many analyses relying on qualitative case studies rather than randomized controls or longitudinal data.^[116] Critics highlight that overreliance on "vanity metrics" obscures ineffectiveness in adversarial contexts, where state censorship or algorithmic echo chambers limit reach and reinforce preexisting biases rather than fostering genuine persuasion.^[133] This skepticism is echoed in assessments noting that digital efforts, while amplifying voices, rarely translate to tangible foreign policy shifts, as evidenced by persistent challenges in influencing public opinion in countries like China or Russia despite extensive social media campaigns.^[25] Proponents counter that long-term effects, such as building latent goodwill or rapid crisis signaling, defy short-term quantification, but such claims often lack rigorous testing, leading to accusations of confirmation bias in optimistic academic literature from diplomacy-focused institutions.^[134] On resource allocation, digital diplomacy demands substantial investments in personnel, training, and monitoring, challenging assumptions of inherent cost savings over traditional methods. The U.S. Department of State, for example, managed over 1,000 social media accounts by 2014, with an allocated $6.72 million for key platforms that year, yet this represented a fraction of the broader public diplomacy budget while requiring dedicated staff amid competing priorities.^[135] Critics argue these expenditures yield diminishing returns, as sustaining two-way engagement escalates costs through constant content production and response to criticism, diverting funds from in-person negotiations or embassy infrastructure—essential for trust-building in high-stakes bilateral relations.^[133] A 2015 analysis questioned the net efficiency, noting that while initial setup appears inexpensive, scaling to effective dialogue strains understaffed foreign ministries, potentially undermining overall diplomatic agility.^[135] These debates underscore opportunity costs, with some foreign ministries reallocating budgets toward digital tools at the expense of conventional programs, prompting calls for hybrid models that prioritize verifiable ROI through integrated metrics blending online reach with offline outcomes. U.S. State Department reports from 2023 and 2024 emphasize maximizing taxpayer returns via digital guidance, but without granular data tying expenditures to specific gains, such as averted crises or secured alliances, skeptics advocate stricter audits to prevent resource misallocation in an era of fiscal constraints.^[82]^[136] Ultimately, unresolved tensions between quantifiable engagement and elusive strategic impact fuel ongoing reevaluations of digital diplomacy's place in national foreign affairs portfolios.

Controversies and Critical Perspectives

Weaponization for Propaganda and Hybrid Warfare

State actors have increasingly integrated digital platforms into hybrid warfare strategies, employing tools originally developed for diplomatic engagement to propagate disinformation, sow societal divisions, and undermine adversaries without direct kinetic confrontation. This weaponization extends traditional propaganda by leveraging social media's speed and reach to amplify narratives that support military objectives or geopolitical aims, often operating below the threshold of open war. For instance, Russia's operations in Ukraine since 2014 exemplify this approach, where state-linked entities coordinated online campaigns with ground incursions to shape perceptions and erode support for Western-backed resistance.^[137] Russia's Internet Research Agency (IRA), a St. Petersburg-based entity funded by oligarchs close to the Kremlin, exemplifies state-sponsored digital propaganda as a hybrid tool. By 2015, the IRA employed around 400 personnel working in shifts to generate pro-Kremlin content and disrupt foreign elections, including the 2016 U.S. presidential vote through fake accounts and targeted ads reaching millions.^[138] In hybrid contexts, such as the 2022 Ukraine invasion, Russian actors used troll farms to flood platforms with narratives denying atrocities like those in Bucha, while UK intelligence identified a Moscow-backed factory producing thousands of daily propaganda posts to target European audiences.^[139] These efforts align with hybrid doctrines emphasizing information dominance, where digital outputs create plausible deniability and exploit algorithmic amplification to polarize targets.^[140] China has similarly weaponized digital diplomacy through "wolf warrior" tactics, where officials aggressively counter foreign criticism on platforms like Twitter to advance state narratives. Since 2019, over 170 Chinese diplomats have used social media to promote COVID-19 origin conspiracies blaming the U.S. and to harass critics, amassing millions of engagements that bolster domestic legitimacy while eroding international trust.^[141] In hybrid scenarios, such as tensions over Taiwan, these efforts integrate with economic coercion and cyber operations, using state media bots—estimated at thousands—to flood discussions and suppress dissent, effectively extending diplomatic pressure into informational battlespaces.^[142] The effectiveness of these tactics stems from digital tools' low cost and scalability; for example, IRA campaigns cost fractions of traditional advertising yet influenced voter attitudes in measurable ways, per analyses of exposure data.^[143] However, attribution challenges persist, as actors employ proxies and VPNs to mask origins, complicating countermeasures and allowing persistent hybrid pressure on democratic cohesion.^[137] This evolution underscores how digital diplomacy, when co-opted, transforms neutral platforms into force multipliers for non-kinetic warfare, prioritizing narrative control over verifiable discourse.

Interplay with Tech Monopolies and Free Speech Constraints

Digital diplomacy increasingly depends on platforms controlled by a handful of technology companies, such as Meta, Google, and X (formerly Twitter), which dominate global information flows and serve as primary channels for state outreach, public engagement, and crisis communication. These firms, often characterized as monopolies due to their market shares exceeding 70-90% in social media and search services in many regions, exercise discretionary power over content visibility through algorithms and moderation policies, thereby influencing the efficacy of diplomatic efforts.^[144]^[145] For instance, during international negotiations or propaganda campaigns, governments like China's have leveraged Twitter for "wolf warrior" diplomacy to counter narratives on issues such as COVID-19 origins, yet platform decisions on hashtag promotion or account suspensions can amplify or mute these messages, altering public opinion dynamics.^[146] This interplay manifests in mutual dependencies and conflicts, where states pressure platforms for content removals or boosts aligned with foreign policy goals, while tech firms comply selectively to maintain market access or avoid regulatory backlash. In the United States, disclosures from internal platform communications revealed extensive coordination between federal agencies and social media companies to suppress content deemed misinformation, including topics relevant to international relations like election interference claims involving foreign actors; such interventions numbered in the thousands annually pre-2022, potentially constraining unfiltered diplomatic signaling.^[147] Similarly, in India and Thailand, governments have employed legal and economic levers to coerce platforms into moderating political speech, with over 90% compliance rates on takedown requests in some periods, which extends to diplomatic contexts by limiting opposition narratives during bilateral tensions.^[148] These dynamics underscore how tech monopolies act as de facto arbiters in global discourse, often prioritizing commercial interests or host-country laws over neutral facilitation. Free speech constraints arise acutely when platform policies—unbound by constitutional protections like the U.S. First Amendment for private entities—impose global standards that clash with sovereign diplomatic imperatives, leading to fragmented communication ecosystems. The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), effective from 2024, mandates systemic risk assessments and content removals for disinformation, with extraterritorial reach affecting non-EU users and platforms, as evidenced by fines up to 6% of global revenue for non-compliance; critics argue this empowers supranational oversight akin to narrative control, hampering states' ability to contest dominant framings in digital diplomacy.^[149] In response, some governments have pursued digital sovereignty measures, such as data localization or alternative platforms, but these fragment interoperability, reducing the reach of multilateral diplomatic initiatives.^[150] Empirical data from Freedom House reports indicate that by 2021, over 80% of countries imposed restrictions on online expression, often via tech intermediaries, correlating with diminished efficacy in public diplomacy metrics like engagement rates on censored topics.^[151] This tension highlights a causal asymmetry: while tech monopolies enable scalable diplomacy, their opaque moderation—responsive to advertiser pressures and regulatory threats—erodes state autonomy, fostering a hybrid governance model where private power rivals public authority in shaping international narratives.

Geopolitical Ramifications: Empowerment vs. Erosion of State Control

Digital diplomacy enables states to extend their influence beyond traditional channels, empowering smaller nations to amplify their geopolitical voice in ways previously unattainable. For instance, Estonia, with a population of approximately 1.3 million, has leveraged digital tools to position itself as a global leader in e-governance and cybersecurity following the 2007 cyber attacks, using platforms like Twitter and official apps to engage international audiences and secure alliances, thereby enhancing its soft power despite limited military resources.^[152] Similarly, small island developing states (SIDS) have adopted digital diplomacy to advocate for climate action, with entities like the Pacific Islands Forum utilizing social media campaigns to garner support from larger powers, as evidenced by increased bilateral aid commitments tracked from 2015 to 2023.^[153] This democratization of diplomatic outreach disrupts traditional hierarchies, allowing non-hegemonic states to bypass gatekept media and directly shape narratives, as seen in Uganda's use of Twitter for crisis communication during the 2021 elections, which boosted its visibility in African Union discussions.^[154] Conversely, the same digital ecosystem erodes state control by fragmenting the monopoly on information that historically underpinned sovereign diplomacy. Diplomats once held exclusive access to foreign policy channels, but the proliferation of social media and open-source intelligence has empowered non-state actors—such as NGOs, hackers, and diaspora groups—to influence outcomes, as demonstrated by the 2019 Hong Kong protests where viral campaigns pressured foreign governments despite Beijing's firewalls.^[155] This erosion manifests in challenges to narrative sovereignty, with states like Russia and China facing uncoordinated domestic pushback amplified online, leading to policy reversals; for example, Russia's 2022 partial mobilization announcement triggered uncontrolled emigration and dissent via Telegram channels.^[156] Moreover, reliance on private platforms introduces vulnerabilities, as algorithm changes or content moderation—evident in the 2020 U.S. election interference debates—can sideline official accounts, compelling states to compete in a crowded digital marketplace rather than dictate terms.^[157] Geopolitically, this duality fosters a multipolar tension: empowerment through agile projection coexists with sovereignty dilution via transnational data flows and hybrid threats. Authoritarian regimes have countered erosion by pursuing digital sovereignty measures, such as China's Great Firewall expansions since 2017, which localize data to regain narrative control but isolate them from global discourse, reducing soft power efficacy as measured by Pew Research's 2023 global favorability polls showing declining perceptions.^[131] In contrast, open societies like the EU grapple with fragmented responses, as the 2022 Digital Services Act aims to regulate platforms yet cedes partial enforcement to U.S.-based firms, underscoring how tech monopolies mediate state interactions and potentially skew alliances toward platform-aligned interests.^[158] Empirical assessments, including Clingendael Institute analyses from 2015 onward, indicate that while digital tools have increased diplomatic outputs by 300% in tweet volume for major powers, measurable influence gains remain inconsistent due to disinformation saturation, highlighting a net geopolitical shift toward contested rather than controlled influence.

Future Trajectories

Integration of Emerging Technologies

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been integrated into digital diplomacy primarily for data analysis, predictive modeling, and automated communication support. In consular services, AI tools process visa applications and assist in crisis response by analyzing vast datasets to forecast migration patterns or security threats. For instance, machine learning algorithms enable sentiment analysis of social media to gauge public opinion during negotiations, allowing diplomats to tailor messaging in real time. The United Nations has developed over 200 AI applications influencing diplomatic policy, including tools for predictive analytics in conflict zones.^[159]^[160]^[49] Blockchain technology supports diplomatic processes by providing tamper-resistant ledgers for secure document verification and aid distribution. In Georgia, blockchain-based land registration systems reduced corruption by ensuring immutable records, a model applicable to treaty verification or cross-border trade agreements. U.S. diplomatic initiatives have explored blockchain for transforming foreign aid transparency, enabling peer-to-peer transactions that minimize intermediaries and fees in development projects. This integration fosters trust in international relations by decentralizing verification, though scalability challenges persist in high-volume diplomatic exchanges.^[161]^[162]^[163] Virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) enable immersive simulations for training and virtual summits, reducing travel demands while enhancing empathy in negotiations. The UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) deployed VR in December 2022 to immerse diplomats in the operations of its Verification Mission in Colombia, allowing experiential learning of field realities without physical deployment. VR tools simulate conflict scenarios for mediators, supporting decision-making by visualizing outcomes and perspectives, as tested in peacebuilding initiatives. Cultural diplomacy benefits from VR's ability to recreate heritage sites virtually, promoting cross-border understanding, though equitable access to hardware remains a barrier for widespread adoption.^[159]^[164]^[165] Convergence of these technologies, such as AI-enhanced VR for metaverse diplomacy or blockchain-secured AI analytics, promises hybrid platforms for global collaboration. Pilot projects indicate potential for real-time, multilingual virtual negotiations, but integration requires addressing interoperability standards and data sovereignty concerns to prevent fragmentation in multilateral forums. Empirical evaluations from case studies show efficiency gains, like reduced negotiation timelines via AI-assisted drafting, yet long-term impacts depend on regulatory frameworks balancing innovation with accountability.^[166]^[167]^[49]

Policy Reforms and Strategic Recommendations for Resilience

Policy reforms to enhance resilience in digital diplomacy emphasize the establishment of international cyber norms and bilateral agreements to deter malicious activities. The United States has advanced this through its International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy, which promotes mutual assistance among allies in response to cyber incidents and prioritizes capacity-building in cyber expertise within diplomatic corps as of 2021.^[76] Similarly, multilateral efforts, such as those outlined by the Council on Foreign Relations, advocate for updated principles and institutional arrangements to foster cooperation on cybersecurity, including norms against targeting critical infrastructure during conflicts.^[168] Domestically, reforms like the U.S. Global Engagement Center's interagency coordination, expanded in 2023, focus on countering foreign propaganda through monitoring and multilateral engagement.^[169] Strategic recommendations include investing in digital literacy and media resilience programs to mitigate disinformation's impact on diplomatic narratives. The U.S. Democratic Roadmap for civic resilience, updated in 2021, calls for prioritizing initiatives that bolster public understanding of digital manipulation, evidenced by partnerships with tech firms for fact-checking tools deployed in over 50 countries by 2024.^[170] Governments should also diversify communication platforms to reduce dependency on private tech monopolies, as recommended in analyses of cyber diplomacy, which highlight the risks of platform deprioritization during geopolitical tensions.^[171] For instance, the European External Action Service's digital diplomacy framework promotes human-centric regulations and inclusive tech standards to ensure sovereign control over diplomatic channels.^[53] Further resilience measures involve integrating offensive and defensive cyber capabilities into diplomatic training protocols. NATO's 2021 strategy update, refined by 2025 to address AI-driven disinformation, recommends real-time monitoring and adaptive communication tactics, with exercises involving 32 member states simulating hybrid threats.^[172] Evidence-based counter-disinformation policies, per Carnegie Endowment research from 2024, stress prebunking over debunking—proactively inoculating audiences against false narratives—supported by randomized trials showing 20-30% efficacy gains in belief resistance.^[173] Policymakers are urged to allocate resources for measurable impact assessments, using metrics like engagement analytics and attribution tracking, to justify expenditures amid debates on efficacy; for example, U.S. State Department evaluations in 2023 linked targeted campaigns to a 15% shift in foreign public opinion on key issues. To address ethical and sovereignty concerns, reforms should mandate transparency in algorithmic decision-making for diplomatic tools, drawing from UNECE guidelines on sustainable digital governance established in 2022.^[174] Strategic diversification of tech suppliers, including open-source alternatives, counters erosion from dominant platforms, as cyber deterrence doctrines from 2025 emphasize digital sovereignty through domestic infrastructure investments.^[175] Overall, these reforms and recommendations prioritize empirical validation, with ongoing evaluations required to adapt to evolving threats like AI-enhanced propaganda.

References

[1]
Digital diplomacy in 2025: Geopolitics, new topics & tools | Diplo
“Digital diplomacy” stands out as the most comprehensive and widely accepted term to describe the overall transformation of diplomacy in the internet age. Its ...
[2]
(PDF) Evolving Trends of Digital Diplomacy and its Role in the ...
Jan 23, 2025 · Digital diplomacy refers to the use of the Internet, ICT, digital technologies and online platforms by governments and diplomats to be engaged in diplomatic ...
[3]
History of Digital Diplomacy and Main Milestones
Nov 4, 2016 · As expected, digital diplomacy development is largely influenced by social media platforms evolution and their ability to engage with citizens.
[4]
The Evolution of Digital Diplomacy in the 21st Century (Academic)
Jul 3, 2024 · The concept of digital diplomacy can be traced back to the early days of the internet, when diplomats began to use email and websites to ...
[5]
The Rise of Digital Diplomacy: Navigating Influence in a Hyper ...
May 16, 2025 · The rise of social media has redefined diplomatic engagement, altering traditional power structures and communication strategies.
[6]
Truth, Lies and Tweets: The Truth about Digital Diplomacy
Jul 30, 2024 · Digital diplomacy, powered by social media and real-time tools, has revolutionized international relations by fostering openness, public participation and ...<|separator|>
[7]
2020 in review: top 10 moments in digital diplomacy - Medium
Dec 16, 2020 · The year of TikTok for Good and for Digital Diplomacy (WHO) launched on the platform with a huge success: almost 3 million followers to date; ...
[8]
[PDF] The Challenges of Digital Diplomacy in the Era of Globalization
Jul 28, 2020 · The success of the UAE's digital diplomacy strategy has been supported by the robust online presence of esteemed Emirati government officials, ...
[9]
The "Dark Side" of Digital Diplomacy
Jan 22, 2019 · This contribution reviews five different tactics that digital diplomats could use separately or in combination to counter digital disinformation.
[10]
Legal aspects of digital diplomacy | Law and world
Mar 31, 2023 · The purpose of this article is to explore the legal aspects of digital diplomacy, especially in the context of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of ...
[11]
[PDF] Digital Diplomacy: Global Trends, Opportunities and Challenges
Mar 3, 2021 · One of the leading legal problems which has emerged as a result of the increased reliance on remote working and use of virtual embassies relates ...
[12]
The Evolution of Diplomacy in the Digital Age: Opportunities and ...
Dec 2, 2024 · The digital age has dramatically transformed the practice of diplomacy, introducing both new opportunities and challenges for international relations.
[13]
[PDF] Digital Diplomacy and Its Effect on International Relations
Mar 6, 2023 · This paper seeks to explore the evolving nature of digital diplomacy and determine its effect on international relations. Four in-person ...
[14]
[PDF] The Digitalization of Diplomacy:
Numerous scholars and diplomats have adopted the term “digital diplomacy” when referring to the intersection between digital technologies and diplomacy. However ...
[15]
The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy
Jan 4, 2024 · This handbook investigates digital diplomacy as a practice, as a process, and as a form of disruption. Written by leading experts in the field.
[16]
How different are offline and online diplomacy? A comparative ...
Apr 8, 2024 · The central inquiry revolves around how diplomatic actors use digital tools to complement or augment traditional face-to-face diplomacy.
[17]
Internet and social media: A focus on diplomacy - Diplo Foundation
Digital diplomacy focuses on the changes in the environment in which diplomacy is practised, the use of internet tools for diplomatic practice, and the new ...
[18]
Digital Diplomacy: A Case Study of Foreign Relations of Mongolian ...
Sep 3, 2024 · It highlights the importance of the Constructivist Theory and the Actor-Network Theory, which provide frameworks for understanding the dynamic ...
[19]
(PDF) Digital Diplomacy and its Impact on International Relations
1 Framing Theory: Framing theory sets political communication apart from other forms of communication due to · 2 Agenda Setting Theory: This theory proposes that ...
[20]
Digital Diplomacy in the 21st Century: The Transformative Role of ...
Sep 4, 2024 · Employing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology rooted in the “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power” theoretical framework, this study ...
[21]
Analytical framework for evaluating digital diplomacy using network ...
This study introduces a data-driven approach for assessing the practices and effectiveness of digital diplomacy. •. The Korean public diplomacy (PD) ...
[22]
[PDF] Analytical framework for evaluating digital diplomacy using network ...
This study introduces a data-driven approach for assessing the practices and effectiveness of digital diplomacy, using the cases of South Korea and Japan.
[23]
[PDF] From the Treaty of Westphalia to the Post-COVID Era - Al-Aasar
Jun 26, 2025 · Traditional diplomacy emphasizes formal protocols and in-person interactions, while digital diplomacy uses technology and social media for real ...
[24]
Full article: Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy
This paper examines the concept of digital diplomacy, focusing on the use of digital media in the field of diplomacy and how countries are utilizing these ...<|separator|>
[25]
Practice Approaches to the Digital Transformations of Diplomacy
Jun 24, 2021 · Digital diplomacy is how the Internet and digital tools influence diplomacy, transforming structural conditions and working routines, and is a ...
[26]
[PDF] Diplomacy in the Digital Age - Clingendael Institute
Jul 3, 2015 · Social media have added an important real-time dimension to diplomacy, making communication ultra-fast and, by necessity, often less precise.
[27]
The History of eDiplomacy at the U.S. Department of State | Brookings
Oct 25, 2012 · The origins of ediplomacy at State can be traced to this same year—1998—and the East Africa bombings, when a Blue Ribbon Panel investigating the ...Missing: 1990s | Show results with:1990s
[28]
25 years of digital (and) diplomacy: Evolution or revolution? - Diplo
Sep 2, 2021 · Digital technology will increasingly shape the evolution of the political and economic environment for diplomatic activities. New diplomatic ...
[29]
Diplomacy timeline - Diplo - DiploFoundation
Attending first major event. June 1993. A presentation on the use of computers in diplomacy was delivered at the UN Meeting on Strengthening Foreign Ministries ...Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
[30]
First true virtual embassy | Guinness World Records
The earliest true virtual embassy was opened on 30 May 2007 when Sweden opened a virtual copy of its Washington, USA, embassy in Second Life.
[31]
Sweden first to open embassy in Second Life | Reuters
Aug 9, 2007 · STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden became the first country on Wednesday to open an embassy in the virtual world Second Life.
[32]
[PDF] The Development and Game of US Digital Diplomacy Under ...
Bush as early as 2006, the United States officially launched digital diplomacy in 2009. From 2010 to 2011, the White House released several official ...
[33]
https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-790
[34]
Digital Diplomacy in the 21st Century: Concepts, Cases, and Policy ...
Jul 20, 2025 · Digital diplomacy, the use of the internet and social media by states to communicate and influence abroad, has rapidly evolved in the 21st ...
[35]
(PDF) Social Media In Digital Diplomacy - ResearchGate
Aug 4, 2025 · Through the use of social media as a platform for sustaining international ties in diplomacy, the purpose of this study is to provide evidence that social ...
[36]
[PDF] twitter for diplomats
The study, titled Twiplomacy, analyzed 264 government accounts in 125 countries. Its findings, available at www.twiplomacy.com, reveal that of the 120 ...
[37]
Coping with digitalization in diplomacy: autonomy and discretion at ...
Jun 12, 2025 · Since the early 2010s, Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA) worldwide have increasingly invested in more digital infrastructure and ...
[38]
Revolution @State: The Spread of E-diplomacy - Diplo Resource
The text analyses the impact of e-diplomacy on modern diplomacy, and the ways in which digital technologies reshape diplomatic practices.
[39]
The rise of hybrid diplomacy: from digital adaptation to digital adoption
Mar 7, 2022 · The past decade has seen diplomats' growing use of digital technologies in a process often referred to as 'digital diplomacy'. Since 2008, ...
[40]
(PDF) Digital Diplomacy in the Age of Social Media: Challenges and ...
Jul 18, 2024 · This study examines how digital technologies, particularly social media, shape the nature and effectiveness of crisis communication in diplomacy.
[41]
Digital diplomacy as world disclosure: the case of the COVID-19 ...
Drawing on the concept of “world disclosure” developed by Heidegger and introduced to diplomatic theory by Bjola (2016), the paper will argue that the digital ...<|separator|>
[42]
MFAs' Digital Communications During COVID-19
Jan 13, 2023 · In this study, we explore the practice of domestic digital diplomacy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[43]
COVID-19 and Diplomacy: impact on negotiations and policy ...
We provide our best resources on COVID-19's impact on diplomacy and global governance, and on technology's response to the global pandemic.
[44]
(PDF) Digital Diplomacy in the Time of the Coronavirus Pandemic
Feb 23, 2023 · This chapter analyzes the digital interventions of various ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) in five broad areas which MFAs have prioritized during the ...
[45]
[PDF] Digitization of Public Diplomacy of Russia and Ukraine during the War
Nov 23, 2024 · This study examines how Russia and Ukraine have adapted their diplomatic strategies using digital tools, particularly during the information ...
[46]
Digital Diplomacy and the Crisis of Diplomatic Credibility
Apr 2, 2025 · This approach was recently pioneered by Ukraine. In the early stages of the war with Russia, Ukraine appointed several “digital ambassadors ...
[47]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378994074_The_Impact_of_Digital_Diplomacy_on_Security_The_Case_of_the_Russia-Ukraine_War
[48]
How Ukraine Uses Cybersecurity to Advance Digital Diplomacy ...
Jul 19, 2025 · The country combines its historical narrative with digital tools to strengthen its international standing and counter disinformation amid ...
[49]
Applications of artificial intelligence in global diplomacy: A review of ...
Insights from the literature suggest that AI can greatly enhance digital diplomacy by analyzing extensive data sets, predicting trends, and generating human- ...
[50]
Artificial Intelligence (AI) - United States Department of State
The Department of State released its first-ever “Enterprise Artificial Intelligence Strategy FY 2024-2025: Empowering Diplomacy through Responsible AI” (EAIS).<|control11|><|separator|>
[51]
Tech Diplomacy and the Digital International Order
Aug 6, 2025 · This article examines the evolving role of the U.S.–EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) in advancing the EU's digital diplomacy, ...<|separator|>
[52]
AI DIPLOMACY: geo-politics, topics and tools in 2025 | Diplo
AI is a topic for diplomacy, a tool for diplomacy, and a force that is changing the geopolitical environment itself.Missing: advancements | Show results with:advancements
[53]
Digital Diplomacy - EEAS - European Union
This page explains the way in which EU Digital Diplomacy upholds the global role of the European Union in the digital world.
[54]
Why tech diplomacy is key to embracing the digital economy
Dec 28, 2023 · Widening the scope of tech diplomacy to include diverse stakeholders is key to the equitable and sustainable growth of the digital economy.
[55]
Digital Diplomacy: The Role of Twitter - IPRC
Twitter and other social media platforms allow government officials to broadcast their views on pertinent issues and developments in the public domain without ...
[56]
The DigiTips Social Media Rankings 2024
May 13, 2024 · The U.S. State Department is by far the most followed foreign ministry on Facebook with close to 3.6 million followers on its different ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[57]
The Case Study of X Diplomacy During the Covid-19 Pandemic
Twitter's immediacy allows direct, swift communication between states, enhancing diplomatic practices and facilitating impactful exchanges on global issues.
[58]
strategic communication of the Taliban de facto government on Twitter
Aug 25, 2025 · This study aims to examine how the Taliban used public diplomacy messaging strategies and social media communication strategies on Twitter to ...
[59]
10 FAH-1 H-060 SOCIAL MEDIA AND DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT
A strategic plan for social media engagement is essential, led by the Public Affairs Section, using a macro strategy and the "ABCDEF" elements.
[60]
10 FAM 180 OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION USING SOCIAL MEDIA
Digital Diplomacy is an important tool of public diplomacy. A key element of digital diplomacy is social media. 10 FAM 181.1 Official Use of Social Media.
[61]
Full article: Assessing Greece's transition to digital diplomacy
This paper attempts to assess how these reform principles are reflected in the Greek digital diplomacy conducted on Twitter, now known as X.
[62]
How WhatsApp upended Middle East diplomacy—and what the US ...
Apr 21, 2023 · In WhatsApp's encrypted channels, diplomats feel freer to form and participate in groups where they privately share resources, ...
[63]
The Geopolitics of Messaging Apps | Medium
Oct 17, 2024 · Some reports have said that Saudi Arabian and Israeli diplomats used WhatsApp for quiet, back-channel diplomacy, negotiating deals. Telegram ...
[64]
For US government, use of unapproved communications tools ...
Apr 8, 2025 · On the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's webpage, WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, another messaging platform, are listed as methods of ...
[65]
Improving diplomatic institutions through technology - Diplo
Feb 3, 2022 · To be practical, many diplomats have also started using instant messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram. Sometimes even important ...
[66]
Political Propaganda Runs Wild on Messaging Apps - Just Security
Oct 11, 2024 · Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber have become highly influential tools for manipulating and misleading voters.
[67]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-diplomats-said-added-to-whatsapp-groups-run-from-iran-other-hostile-nations/
[68]
[PDF] The role of artificial intelligence and social media in digital diplomacy
Oct 5, 2025 · AI applications are increasingly central to diplomatic and military strategies. Sentiment analysis, predictive analytics, and machine learning ...
[69]
State Department Unveils AI Strategy to Modernize Diplomacy
Oct 2, 2025 · The State Department says it will equip its diplomats with artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities and improve its data infrastructure ...
[70]
Artificial Intelligence (AI) - United States Department of State
The U.S. Department of State is harnessing the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to advance diplomacy in the 21st century.
[71]
https://trendsresearch.org/insight/artificial-intelligence-in-diplomacy-transforming-global-relations-and-negotiations/
[72]
[PDF] Data Diplomacy - Diplo Foundation
Data diplomacy involves big data as a tool, a topic in diplomacy, and a factor changing the environment, including online, sensor, satellite, and textual data.
[73]
Data Informed Diplomacy - United States Department of State
We invite you to explore this site to learn how the US Department of State is making data a critical instrument of diplomacy.
[74]
The Role of Data Analytics & OSINT as Resource of Diplomatic ...
As data analytics and OSINT provide insight in the behaviour of state and non-state actors in cyberspace, we refer to joint diplomatic responses: EU Cyber ...
[75]
Data diplomacy: turning bytes into insights in the foreign service
Feb 4, 2022 · Data analysis could have a meaningful part to support core diplomatic activities – negotiations, consular services, humanitarian response and more.
[76]
United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy
Russia's cyberattacks in support of its 2022 unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were intended to destabilize the Ukrainian state and military and have resulted in ...
[77]
The EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox: An In-Depth Analysis of Cyber ...
The EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox is a joint EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities. This is part of the EU's approach to cyber diplomacy.
[78]
Cyber diplomacy and cybersecurity: guardians of the digital realm - IE
Jul 16, 2024 · Exploring the growing importance of cybersecurity and cyber diplomacy in national security.
[79]
Cybersecurity Policy & Diplomacy - Microsoft
Microsoft strengthens international norms, works with governments, promotes responsible behavior, and promotes greater regulatory alignment in cybersecurity.<|separator|>
[80]
Public Diplomacy in 2025 - Diplo Foundation
Public diplomacy is increasingly performed via social media and other digital tools. Learn about the potential and limits of public diplomacy in the digital ...
[81]
(PDF) Digital Diplomacy in the Era of New Media - ResearchGate
Findings reveal that new media is crucial to digital diplomacy, enabling cultural exchange and cross-cultural dialogue essential for modern diplomatic ...
[82]
[PDF] 2023 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy ...
The 2023 report, which details all reported major U.S. government PD and international broadcasting activities conducted by the U.S. Department of. State and ...
[83]
None
Nothing is retrieved...<|separator|>
[84]
[PDF] Digital Transformation of Ukraine's Public Diplomacy - HAL
Oct 29, 2024 · Russia's Famine Games. Campaign aimed at unveiling the truth about Ukraine's food supplies during the war and countering Russia's narratives.<|control11|><|separator|>
[85]
[PDF] The role of real-time intelligence disclosure in the Ukraine War
Jun 30, 2025 · The findings of this study indicate that public intelligence disclosure in the Ukraine War has been highly effective in countering Russian.
[86]
[PDF] Strategic Narratives on Social Media
Apr 18, 2025 · Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been accompanied by the dissemination of strategic narratives aimed at legitimizing military ...
[87]
“Wolf Warrior” and China's digital public diplomacy during the ...
Oct 26, 2021 · The aim of this “wolf warrior” practice is to highlight the superiority of the socialist system and to hint at the feasibility of China's model ...
[88]
When does public diplomacy work? Evidence from China's “wolf ...
Nov 24, 2022 · We find that positive messages emphasizing aid and friendship improve perceptions of China, even in times of escalating violent conflict.
[89]
(PDF) Wolf Warrior Spreads Superior: The narrative and ...
Apr 9, 2024 · This paper investigates the effectiveness of China's "wolf warrior diplomacy" on audience engagement on Twitter and significant factors impacting communication ...
[90]
Tracing China's diplomatic transition to wolf warrior diplomacy and ...
Nov 18, 2023 · This study investigates the evolution of China's diplomacy, specifically its transition from a peaceful and low-profile approach to the assertive and ...
[91]
[PDF] 2024 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy ...
The 2024 report, which details all reported major U.S. government PD and international broadcasting activities conducted by the U.S. Department of State and the ...
[92]
Between Measuring Engagement and Measuring Resonance
Nov 25, 2024 · By measuring “engagement metrics” one could finally measure the outcome of public diplomacy activities, an important advantage as such ...
[93]
Evaluating Audience Engagement as a Measure of Digital ...
This article presents relevant tools for analyzing engagement in digital diplomacy, where 'engagement' is defined as the two-way interaction between a ...
[94]
View of Restoring reputation through digital diplomacy
View of Restoring reputation through digital diplomacy: the European Union's strategic narratives on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[95]
AI-assisted diplomatic decision-making during crises—Challenges ...
Some of the examples of research in this area are in preparing and conducting diplomatic negotiations, where AI tools have been used for peacebuilding and ...
[96]
Responding to Modern Cyber Threats with Diplomacy and Deterrence
Oct 19, 2020 · In 2013, for instance, the Obama Administration established a new communications channel for addressing cyberspace problems that connects the ...
[97]
Crisis management - Diplo - DiploFoundation
Apr 17, 2025 · The most effective crisis responses emerge when technology and human judgment operate synergistically. For example, AI can draft ceasefire ...
[98]
Track I.5 & Track II Diplomacy - NCAFP
Track I.5 and Track II diplomacy forms the basis of the NCAFP's approach to resolving conflicts and promoting America's strategic interest. This type of ...
[99]
Social Media and Public Diplomacy
While some governments have long-embraced social media as a tool for tourism, the lines between Track I and Track II ... digital diplomacy · social media ...
[100]
[PDF] The Role of Track-Two Diplomacy in Conflict Resolution
Jansen, W. E. (2020). Achieving A Nuclear Deal: A Track II Diplomacy Analysis of the US-Iran Nuclear Rela- tions. Global History and International Relations.
[101]
Track II (Citizen) Diplomacy - Beyond Intractability
Track II (Citizen) Diplomacy · Who are Track Two Intermediaries and Diplomats? · Functions of Informal Intermediaries · Roles Played by Informal Intermediaries in ...
[102]
Assessing the G20 Virtual Summit - CSIS
Mar 27, 2020 · G20 leaders met virtually on March 26 to address the international response to the COVID-19 pandemic. CSIS experts Matthew P. Goodman, ...Missing: diplomacy | Show results with:diplomacy
[103]
G20 summit, 21-22 November 2020 - consilium.europa.eu
Nov 21, 2020 · At a virtual summit hosted by Saudi Arabia, the G20 leaders expressed their strong commitment to coordinated global action, solidarity, and multilateral ...Missing: diplomacy | Show results with:diplomacy
[104]
Time For An Upgrade: Moving WTO Negotiations Into The Digital ...
May 26, 2020 · The digital tax negotiations, facing an end of the year deadline have moved online with a steady schedule of virtual meetings. An international ...
[105]
The WTO Joint Initiative stabilised 'Agreement on Electronic ...
Jul 30, 2024 · The JSI Agreement on Electronic Commerce presents extensive provisions aiming to cater to the specific needs of developing countries and LDCs.Missing: virtual | Show results with:virtual
[106]
Readout of President Biden's Virtual Meeting with President Xi ...
Nov 16, 2021 · President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. met virtually on November 15 with President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
[107]
Biden-Xi virtual meeting ends with both sides calling for ... - CNBC
Nov 15, 2021 · The leaders ended the meeting shortly before 12:30 p.m. Beijing time (11:30 p.m. ET Monday), almost four hours after it began, according to ...
[108]
The Future of Virtual Negotiations - Exploring Digital Diplomacy
Jun 26, 2022 · Everyday, in cities such as Geneva or New York, numerous accords are negotiated at the World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, ...
[109]
(PDF) Taking trust online: Digitalisation and the practice of ...
This article starts form the concern that trust is tied to face-to-face diplomacy, which is challenged in digitalising settings.
[110]
Conference diplomacy in the era of COVID: How do international ...
Jan 19, 2023 · In this paper, we analyse how virtual negotiations have changed the negotiation management of multilateral processes, by studying virtual ...
[111]
[PDF] Public Diplomacy 2.0: A Case Study of the US Digital Outreach Team
Sep 24, 2012 · The internet is enabling new approaches to public diplomacy. The US Digital. Outreach Team (DOT) is one such initiative, aiming to engage ...
[112]
Estonia's digital diplomacy: Nordic interoperability and the ...
Jul 22, 2024 · Manor (2019) explores digital diplomacy's impact on public diplomacy, using case studies to show technology's influence on diplomatic practices.
[113]
[PDF] Here - Exploring Digital Diplomacy
Digital Diplomacy's emphasis on dialogue and participation exposes millions of users to the important discussions taking place within Israel and abroad. In a ...
[114]
[PDF] Digital Diplomacy and the Social Legitimacy of the United Nations
with an average engagement rate of 0.017% (low) and the @UN account published 26 tweets, with an engagement rate of 0.005% (extremely low). The ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[115]
[PDF] A case of China's (failed) Twiplomacy in contesting coronavirus
Most studies on transnational frame contestation to date have focused on how state actors use diplomatic communication or manage journalistic discourse to gain.
[116]
[PDF] Measuring The Effectiveness Of Influence In Digital Public Diplomacy
Apart from not being easy to connect public diplomacy efforts and changes in perceptions or behavior, public diplomacy measures tend to require high costs ...
[117]
Taking Australian diplomacy digital - ASPI
Apr 18, 2019 · There's too much use of new media channels to transmit old media content, a tendency to duck rather than address difficult issues, and a failure ...
[118]
(PDF) Digital Diplomacy and Implementation Challenges in Africa
Sep 21, 2022 · This study mainly provides a detailed investigation of the effectiveness of the implementation of digital diplomacy in Ethiopia. ... failure ...
[119]
[PDF] The Challenges of the Internet and Social Media in Public Diplomacy
This quantitative analysis provides the basis from which public diplomats can craft better messages to actually understand who they are reaching, and make ...Missing: quantifiable shortfalls
[120]
Challenges in Measuring Public Diplomacy
Aug 4, 2017 · Katherine Brown delves into the importance of evaluating public diplomacy and offers advice on how to do so.
[121]
Iran-linked cyber group compromises diplomatic email systems ...
Sep 5, 2025 · An Iran-nexus group conducted a coordinated spear-phishing campaign targeting embassies and consulates worldwide, exploiting over 100 email ...
[122]
Digital Diplomacy and Disinformation: Reshaping Global Public ...
May 7, 2025 · Case studies of Russian election interference, Chinese influence operations, and domestic disinformation crises (e.g., the 2020 U.S. Capitol ...
[123]
China-Linked Hackers Targeted Diplomats In Southeast Asia: Google
Aug 27, 2025 · The attacks, using social engineering and malware disguised as innocuous software updates, are attributed to the China-linked UNC6384 group, ...
[124]
Social networks, disinformation and diplomacy: a dynamic model for ...
Aug 15, 2023 · This article aimed to simulate the propagation of disinformation in social networks derived from the diplomacy strategy, based on the elements of the system.
[125]
Iranian State Actors Conduct Cyber Operations Against the ... - CISA
Sep 23, 2022 · In July 2022, Iranian state cyber actors—identifying as “HomeLand Justice”—launched a destructive cyber attack against the Government of Albania ...
[126]
(PDF) Disinformation propagation in social networks as a diplomacy ...
Jul 29, 2021 · Abstract. Disinformation on social media has positioned itself as a strategy of diplomacy to intervene in the decisions of sovereign states ...
[127]
Frozen in transit: Secret Blizzard's AiTM campaign against diplomats
Jul 31, 2025 · In February 2025, Microsoft Threat Intelligence observed Secret Blizzard conducting a cyberespionage campaign against foreign embassies located ...
[128]
[PDF] Ethical dilemmas in digital diplomacy
Abstract. This article examines the myriad ethical dilemmas arising from the integration of digital technologies into diplomatic relations and practices.
[129]
New Digital Dilemmas: Resisting Autocrats, Navigating Geopolitics ...
Nov 29, 2023 · States often abuse the language of sovereignty to evade their responsibilities under international law and justify patterns of digital ...
[130]
Transparency and accountability: the challenges of artificial ...
Possible breaches of privacy, violations of confidentiality, data loss or discrimination ; • Unresolved issues of responsibility in cases of “machine error”.
[131]
Digital sovereignty: The end of the open internet as we know it? (Part...
Apr 3, 2025 · It explores why digital sovereignty switched from being ostracised to being a central notion of current digital policy-making.
[132]
Measuring The Effectiveness Of Influence In Digital Public Diplomacy
Feb 14, 2021 · This article offers an argument that the impact or influence of digital public diplomacy can also be measured even though there is no face to ...
[133]
Digital Diplomacy Myths
Jul 16, 2018 · An analysis of common misconceptions about digital technologies as tools for diplomacy.
[134]
Digitalization of public diplomacy: Concepts, trends, and challenges
Nov 10, 2022 · Today, however, we find that foreign ministries, embassies, and diplomats use different digital technologies to achieve many different goals.
[135]
Is Digital Diplomacy Really Cost Effective?
Jul 21, 2015 · ... criticism is much more demanding in terms of resources and costs. Yet it is also much more effective and beneficial to nations the world over.
[136]
[PDF] 2024 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy ...
Dec 3, 2024 · maximize the return on investment in people-to- people connections ... source for digital diplomacy policy guidance and best practices ...
[137]
Russia's hybrid war against the West - NATO Review
Apr 26, 2024 · There are several examples that illustrate this combination, including fanning disinformation, sponsoring non-state actors in Russia's European ...
[138]
What Is the Internet Research Agency? - The Atlantic
Feb 16, 2018 · The origin of the Russian “troll farm” that allegedly targeted America's 2016 presidential election.
[139]
UK exposes sick Russian troll factory plaguing social media with ...
May 1, 2022 · UK Government funded expert research unveils new tactics of the Kremlin's large-scale disinformation campaign; troll factory is targeting ...
[140]
[PDF] SOCIAL MEDIA AS A TOOL OF HYBRID WARFARE
Jan 16, 2016 · Recently we have witnessed how both states and non-state actors use hybrid approaches to pursue their political and military aims, skilfully ...
[141]
How China's 'wolf warrior' diplomats use and abuse Twitter | Brookings
Oct 28, 2020 · The work of Chinese diplomats on Twitter looks very different: More than 170 of them bicker with Western powers, promote conspiracies about the coronavirus, ...
[142]
Understanding Chinese “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy”
Oct 22, 2021 · At first, Chinese diplomats did not have a large social media following. The first one to gather a large audience was Zhao Lijian—spokesperson ...
[143]
Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency's impact ... - PNAS
Nov 25, 2019 · There is widespread concern that Russia and other countries have launched social-media campaigns designed to increase political divisions in ...Missing: digital | Show results with:digital<|separator|>
[144]
Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of ...
Apr 9, 2019 · But if these tech firms are not monopolies, then it matters much less whether their content moderation constitutes a violation of free speech.
[145]
Open Markets Institute Urges Congress to Stop Defending Big ...
Sep 3, 2025 · “American democracy cannot be safeguarded if Big Tech corporations continue to act as unaccountable private governors of public speech,” the ...Missing: diplomacy | Show results with:diplomacy
[146]
[PDF] Twitter and Digital Diplomacy: China and COVID-19 - LSE
China uses Twitter for "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy, to push back against criticism, using hashtags for targeted outreach and to influence public opinion.
[147]
The Cover Up: Big Tech, the Swamp, and Mainstream Media ...
Feb 8, 2023 · The Cover Up: Big Tech, the Swamp, and Mainstream Media Coordinated to Censor Americans' Free Speech · Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) · In addition, ...
[148]
Regulation or Repression? Government Influence on Political ...
Jul 31, 2024 · It analyzes how the Indian and Thai governments have used legal, economic, and political forms of coercive influence to shape platforms' moderation of ...
[149]
[PDF] How Europe's Digital Services Act Threatens Free Speech and Faith ...
Sep 3, 2025 · Introduction. Europe's Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and its proponents seek worldwide narrative control in the digital age.Missing: constraints | Show results with:constraints
[150]
Data, Big Tech, and the New Concept of Sovereignty - PMC
May 3, 2023 · Digital authoritarianism and technological tyranny are becoming increasingly apparent as governments rely on data to run the country. Meanwhile, ...
[151]
Freedom on the Net 2021: The Global Drive to Control Big Tech
Free expression online is under unprecedented strain. More governments arrested users for nonviolent political, social, or religious speech than ever before.Missing: diplomacy | Show results with:diplomacy
[152]
COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS FROM ESTONIA AND SRI LANKA
This study explores how Estonia, a small Baltic state with a population of just over 1.3 million, has effectively employed digital diplomacy to expand its ...
[153]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396702441_THE_EVOLUTION_OF_DIGITAL_DIPLOMACY_THE_OPPORTUNITIES_AND_CHALLENGES_FOR_THE_SMALL_ISLAND_DEVELOPING_STATES_SIDS
[154]
Trends in Diplomatic Communication: A Case Study of Uganda
The aim of this research was to examine the communication trends in diplomacy with a focus on Uganda.
[155]
Digital Communication Disrupting Hegemonic Power in Global ...
Jul 30, 2019 · This paper seeks to track and examine the claims of an evolving world order, where the existing US-led, Western-centric world order is being disrupted and ...
[156]
Digital, but not yet doing digital diplomacy - jstor
Modern-day technology, however, has eroded most of these natural monopolies. Diplomats no longer enjoy a monopoly on information. Leaders and decision-makers in ...Missing: state | Show results with:state
[157]
Digital Diplomacy And Its Implications In The 21st Century - IPRC
This revolution affected how other countries behaved, and future ICT decisions revolutionised diplomatic involvement with the development of digital diplomacy.
[158]
Digital Authoritarianism: How Digital Technologies Can Empower ...
Feb 16, 2023 · Digital technologies have expanded the means by which states – both authoritarian and democratic – can exert societal control.Missing: ramifications | Show results with:ramifications
[159]
Projects | VR for Peace - UN Innovation Network
In December 2022, UN DPPA invited diplomats to try out Virtual Reality (VR) on the work of the UN Verification Mission in Colombia.
[160]
Engineering Diplomacy: How AI and Human Augmentation Could ...
Feb 25, 2022 · In fact, over 200 applications of AI are being developed by the United Nations alone that could influence diplomatic relations and policy making ...
[161]
https://amo.house.gov/press-release/amo-kim-promote-the-promise-of-blockchain-for-diplomatic-and-national-security-goals
[162]
Blockchain for Diplomacy and Development: Hype or Ripe? - state.gov
Oct 26, 2017 · The potential benefits of blockchain are many: assisting the world's most vulnerable populations, transforming foreign aid and trade, promoting ...Missing: processes | Show results with:processes
[163]
Analyzing the Role of Blockchain Technology in Strengthening ...
Oct 25, 2023 · Blockchain's peer-to-peer system has enabled the excision of some intermediaries, instantaneous processing, and the elimination of fees when ...
[164]
Shifting Mindsets: Integrating Virtual Reality in Conflict Mediation ...
Jul 10, 2024 · Virtual reality can also be used to simulate possible scenarios for mediators and support decision-making, allowing policy makers to experience ...
[165]
Virtual Reality and the Future of Peacemaking (Briefing Paper #14)
Through VR technology, individuals can develop empathy, understand different perspectives, and communicate effectively, facilitating conflict resolution. VR ...
[166]
Exploring the Intersection of VR, AI and Diplomacy
Nov 29, 2024 · In this thought-provoking episode we delve into the fascinating intersection of virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence (AI) in the realm of diplomacy.
[167]
How immersive technology, blockchain and AI are converging
Jun 21, 2024 · Synergies between spatial computing, blockchain and AI will augment our experiences and increasingly guide our interactions with the digital ...
[168]
Increasing International Cooperation in Cybersecurity and Adapting ...
The working papers identify new principles, rules, or institutional arrangements that can improve international cooperation in addressing long-standing or ...
[169]
[PDF] Report-Efforts-to-Combat-Disinformation-of-Foreign-Adversaries ...
The GEC leads U.S. government interagency and international efforts to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation abroad through its multilateral engagement, ...
[170]
Democratic Roadmap: Building Civic Resilience to the Global Digital ...
Prioritize investment in initiatives that strengthen civic resilience to digital information manipulation and improve digital, media and information literacy.
[171]
Cyber diplomacy: defining the opportunities for cybersecurity and ...
This article investigates the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), Blockchains, and Quantum Computing on cyber diplomacy.
[172]
NATO's approach to counter information threats
Feb 3, 2025 · 2021 The Alliance needs a broadly effective strategy to counter the evolving threat of disinformation. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools ...
[173]
Countering Disinformation Effectively: An Evidence-Based Policy ...
Jan 31, 2024 · For more on the distinction between misinformation and disinformation, see Dean Jackson, “Issue Brief: Distinguishing Disinformation From ...
[174]
We need to build digital diplomacy for a sustainable and inclusive ...
Dec 2, 2022 · Digital technologies can allow for more informed policy decisions and a closer relation between governments and citizens.
[175]
Cyber Deterrence and Digital Resilience: Towards a New Doctrine ...
Jun 18, 2025 · Digital sovereignty must encompass offensive capabilities against state-backed cyber aggressors and against hegemonic drifts of platforms ...