What makes diplomatic negotiation different from other negotiations is that it takes place between or among nation-states through their representatives, and the stakes are usually higher than those in a domestic context. In addition, while other types of negotiation tend to be mostly transactional, negotiating in diplomacy cannot be isolated from the overall relationship with the other party. A truly successful diplomatic negotiation is one that not only resolves an immediate problem, but ensures that the state of relations with the other side will serve one’s interests in the long run. That does not mean that ties must necessarily be close or friendly, as long as they are civil and respectful, and the countries can work together in the future. Another feature of negotiation that is essential in diplomacy is its ability to build a basis for empathy. It helps to convey one’s own motivations and interests directly, which can reduce misunderstanding, and it provides insight into the other side’s motivations and perceptions.

Diplomacy is a highly complex, multifaceted and often unpredictable profession. By definition, it seeks to overcome differences between and among countries, and those distinctions run the risk of turning into discord, or even conflict, without a playing field that has mutually accepted rules and norms. This is the role of diplomatic protocol, a system of standards, rules and regulations governing the conduct of international relations. It brings order and predictability to the work of diplomats by providing a roadmap or framework, so they can focus on the substance of negotiations and high-stakes decisions. It has been called “the oil in the gears of diplomacy” and credited with creating a “safe space that allows diplomacy to succeed.” While tradition has always had a special place in diplomacy, protocol’s role is hardly limited to old-fashioned pomp and circumstance. It has practical aspects meant to make diplomatic work more effective.

The Peace conference was the climax of Anglo-Italian relations. Traditional interpretations of it need to be significantly revised to fully grasp how and why Italy’s victory was ‘mutilated.’