**Author details**

*Education, Human Rights and Peace in Sustainable Development*

contributes to the bureaucratization of negotiation processes.

then only look for ways to implement them.

interests of many parties at once.

exchange views.

officials are discredited.

to misunderstandings, and often create confusion.

of interest, rather, to a narrower circle. The reasons for this attitude to diplomacy are understandable and partly justified. First of all, it is necessary to understand what is happening, outline the main foreign policy priorities and approaches, and

Today, diplomacy is largely multi-party in nature and simultaneously involves the participation of more than two parties in solving and discussing problematic issues. This is due to the fact that the globalization of the modern world affects the

Multilateral negotiation and multilateral diplomacy give rise to new opportunities but at the same time and difficulties in the bilateral environment. For example, an increase in the number of parties when discussing a problem situation leads to a more complex overall structure of interests, the formation of coalitions, and the appearance of leading States in negotiating forums. In addition, a large number of procedural, organizational and technical problems arise in multilateral negotiations, namely: the need to agree on the venue; the agenda, decision-making and decision-making; and the chairmanship of forums; accommodation of delegations, etc. All this, in turn,

It is also necessary to note other features of modern diplomacy, which are due to current trends in global political progress. The interdependence of the world and globalization have increased the importance of diplomacy, which is carried out at the highest and highest levels, as it provides an opportunity for "broad linkages" between different aspects. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that agreements signed by top officials of countries provide additional guarantees for their implementation. In addition, at these meetings, heads of state have the opportunity to quickly get the necessary information "first-hand" and

In addition, diplomacy at the highest and highest levels has a downside. First of all, the scale of decisions made dramatically increases the degree of responsibility for them, and, accordingly, the price of a possible error. This problem is particularly acute in crisis situations. In addition, it should be borne in mind that if agreements that were reached at the highest or high levels are suddenly considered erroneous after they are signed, it is much more difficult to abandon them than those signed similarly at a lower level, because in this situation, the country's

Another limitation of diplomacy at the highest and highest levels is that it is largely determined by personal antipathies and sympathies, and this has an impact on foreign policy decisions. In addition, it should be borne in mind that diplomacy at the highest and highest levels can only be effective if it is well prepared. In other words, the participants of these meetings may be "hostages" of the public's hopes for a quick solution to the problem situation and take unjustified steps. It is for this reason that G. Nickolson was quite reserved about top-level and high-level diplomacy [13]. He believed that there were situations when the foreign Minister or the head of the Cabinet should be present at important conferences, but their private mutual visits should not be too encouraged. These visits, he wrote, raise hopes, lead

In modern diplomacy, the emphasis is not just on refusing outright deception. The informative and communicative function of diplomacy is primarily aimed at

A bilateral dialog is a recognition that the other side has its own goals and interests. This is not only natural and natural, but also a productive factor in terms of the progress of relations. It follows that the main function of communication and information is not the Directive imposition of one's own point of view, but the

desire to seek a mutually acceptable solution to problems through dialog.

**304**

forming a dialog.

Alexander Rozanov1 \*, Maria Ivanchenko1 , Alexandra Baranova2 , Elena N. Antonova3 , Mikhail Smirnov2 , Olga Belyaeva2 , Maria Ilicheva4 , Ludmila Ilicheva2 , Maria Krotovskaya2 , Tatiana Grabovich3 , Zaru Utekova<sup>5</sup> , Dmitry Medvedev<sup>6</sup> , Natalya Ogneva7 , Furat Al-Mutairi1 , Elvira Shishlo2 , Amina Surpkelova2 , Irina Kopachevskaya2 , Irina Sokurova<sup>2</sup> , Yulia Borisova<sup>2</sup> , Fernando Joao1 , Artyom Pakulskikh1 , Polina Chernova1 , Alexandra Khramova8 , Oksana Gryuk<sup>9</sup> , Jesus Yaniz Gonzalez<sup>2</sup> , Valentina Komleva<sup>2</sup> , Alina Papsheva<sup>2</sup> and Arkadi Bessonov2

1 NUST MISIS, Moscow, Russian Federation

2 Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russian Federation

3 MGIMO University, Moscow, Russian Federation

4 All-Russian Academy of Foreign Trade, Moscow, Russian Federation

5 Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

6 Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas, Moscow, Russian Federation

7 Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russian Federation

8 MSU, Moscow, Russian Federation

9 Technical School of The Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, Russian Federation

\*Address all correspondence to: rozanov-88@list.ru

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
