Trade and environmental diplomacy

Considering differences between these areas of diplomacy regarding structure, the emphasis on security diplomacy still sees states as the main actors, as represented for example in the security council of the UN (although from a public diplomacy point of view, it can be seen that embassies today have much more of an emphasis on communications with non-state actors, rather than just ministerial networking and communicating). But opposed to this, the structures of trade diplomacy and environmental diplomacy have become much more inclusive in their decision making processes.
This point could be linked to the fact that trade diplomacy is implemented through bargaining at a domestic level and then at the international level afterwards.
At the Rio Conference In 1992 on sustainable development, about 1500 NGOs were represented. Also at the Johannesburg 2002 summit, where civil society organizations and business representatives were even more significant than heads of state. From this, it can be seen that in trade and environmental diplomacy, states are less autonomous within the negotiation process than in security diplomacy.
Regarding the process of diplomacy, again security diplomacy differs from environmental and trade diplomacy in that it can be much more secretive than these other two forms. Although slightly before the time of the implementation of the new diplomacy, secrecy was used by Roosevelt regarding communications with Prussia during the Venezuela crisis of 1902-1903, where the important breakthroughs were done through backchannels. This example can be used to show how the old diplomacy is still relevant today, as for example backchannels were also an important part of the process during the beginning of rapprochement with China.
Trade diplomacy can relate to foreign policy, for example the dispute between the EC and the US over protectionism by the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy. Whereas it could be argued environmental diplomacy does not depend as much on foreign policy. For example, although the US did not ratify the Kyoto protocol, some states such as California and Boston introduced their own environmental policies.
Environmental diplomacy is limited by the processes of international politics, and agreements on policies will only be made where heads of state approve of them. This is partly due to the nature of international law, and the fact that the environment is still often seen as being an optional issue. Another problem which affects this is the fact that it is difficult to measure environmental processes such as global warming accurately due to the idea of natural processes. Again, due to how environmental processes may be seen, it can take a very long time for treaties to be ratified. The effects of trade and security crises can be more easily seen.
To sum up, there are many differences between these areas of diplomacy, which include amongst others, the ideas of openness and also of inclusion.