Editors’ Note

Dear readers,

Who says new academic year also says new editorial board, and you best believe a new direction for the LUSDA Diplomatic Digest. We are happy to announce the launch of a strategic collaboration with the Oxford Diplomatic Dispatch. This will hopefully help us increase the Digest’s exposure and serve as an academic reference, allowing LUISS students to gain more visibility. For this new academic year, we will curate for you a monthly selection of research-based articles ranging from monthly columns to structured essays.

We firmly believe in encouraging everyone to form their own opinions. The articles in this issue, written by the Diplomatic Digest team, do not reflect the official stance of the Diplomatic Digest. Instead, they symbolize the diversity of thought as a student-run university publication that we aim to promote for the future class of diplomats and international actors. We recognize that some of the topics covered are highly contested, but our hope is to give you, the reader, a space to consider calmly presented perspectives, including ones you may not have thought of before. We invite you, to engage, reflect, and contribute to this ever-evolving dialogue.

The Diplomatic Digest team,

Cristiano Nardelli

Gonzalo Rodao

Flora Jannotti Testa

Giacomo Matteo Venditti

Konstantin Zametica

Giulia Diurni

Come check out the LUSDA’s Instagram to see what are our next events. Also, register to the form in our website to become a LUSDA member, and enter in the WhatsApp group to stay updated on the Digest and LUSDA’s activities.

In This Issue

Tuvalu on the World Stage
Diplomacy for Heritage and Identity
By Flora Jannotti Testa

Humorous Episodes from Diplomatic History
The Absurd Side of Diplomacy
By Konstantin Zametica

Gender and Diplomacy
Reframing the Italian Paradigm
By Cristiano Nardelli

The Art of Ambiguity in UN Treaties
Writing without Saying, Promising without Committing
By Giacomo Matteo Venditti

Diplomacy is Getting Social
Diplomatic Conduct in a Hyperconnected World
By Giulia Diurni

Prove Me Wrong (Column)
The Two-State Solution is Dead
By Gonzalo Rodao

Tuvalu on the World Stage

Diplomacy for Heritage and Identity

by Flora Jannotti Testa

For many of us, rising sea levels are a distant news headline. But for small island states like Tuvalu, Kiribati, or the Maldives, it’s a matter of survival. Not just for their land, but for their culture, traditions, and sense of identity. When your home disappears under water, what happens to your songs, your rituals, your history tied to that soil? This is the pressing question facing island nations today, and it’s one they are bringing to the very heart of international diplomacy.

The world is waking up to the idea that climate change is not just an environmental or economic crisis, it’s a cultural one. UNESCO has put the issue high on its agenda, with programs dedicated to helping small islands document and safeguard their heritage. At recent climate summits, from the UN General Assembly to COP26 in Glasgow, island leaders have made it clear: losing land also means risking the erasure of collective memory. Anyone following international affairs will recall Tuvalu’s foreign minister, Simon Kofe, making headlines at COP26 by speaking to the world while standing knee-deep in the sea. It was a striking image meant to drive home that what’s at stake is not just real estate, but identity itself.

Tuvalu is one of the smallest and most vulnerable countries in the world, and it has taken this message to heart. Alongside calling for stronger global climate action, it has launched a series of cultural preservation projects. These range from recording oral histories and digitizing archives to ensuring the Tuvaluan language is kept alive for future generations. Partnerships with organizations like the German Archaeological Institute are helping to build digital “memory banks” of the nation’s traditions. Diplomatically, Tuvalu has been just as active. It is pushing UNESCO and the wider international community to recognize that cultural loss is inseparable from climate loss. In doing so, Tuvalu is reframing the crisis: it’s not only about saving coastlines, but about protecting the stories, songs, and spiritual connections that give people their identity.

The fate of Tuvalu and other small island states is a litmus test for the world’s commitment to cultural diversity. If the international community fails to preserve the heritage of these nations, it risks letting entire identities vanish with the tide. That’s why diplomacy around this issue is as much about dignity as it is about disaster response. Networks like the Pacific Heritage Hub bring together island nations to share ideas and push for stronger international commitments. Blue Shield International, an NGO often described as the “Red Cross for culture,” has started mapping out heritage risks in vulnerable areas. The message is consistent: preserving culture is part of building resilience.

Most importantly, preserving culture in the face of rising seas is not something island nations can do alone. It requires solidarity, resources, recognition, and respect from the wider international community. That means integrating cultural protection into climate finance packages, ensuring displaced communities maintain legal rights to their traditions, and giving cultural survival the same weight as economic survival. In other words, diplomacy on climate change must expand beyond emissions and adaptation to include the survival of identity itself.

If you want to dive deeper into how UNESCO is working with island states to preserve culture in the face of climate change, visit the “World Heritage and Small Island Developing States” portal at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/sids/.

Humorous Episodes from Diplomatic History

The Absurd Side of Diplomacy

by Konstantin Zametica

Politics is probably the most problematic profession to pursue.
Controversy is ubiquitous to this fine craft, and it is self-evident that we are entangled in a vicious cycle of conflicts that breed problems for future generations. In this bleak reality, it is helpful to laugh at the silliness of it all, and the diplomatic history of the world is a great source of ridiculous events that reveal the inherent humor of the political craft.

100 Years’ War Between Montenegro and Japan (1904–2006)

The title is factually correct. Montenegro and Japan, countries 13,600 km apart—the former in the Balkans, the latter in East Asia—were at war for over 100 years. This bitter rivalry persisted until a formal peace treaty was signed in 2006. Obvious questions impose themselves: Why? How? Have they lost their mind? War is not something to laugh at, but this is an exception to the rule. While it is true that Montenegro and Japan were at war with one another (despite the distance) until 2006, the context clarifies this seemingly absurd situation.

Unlike today, at the beginning of the 20th century, Montenegro (then an independent Principality) had excellent relations with the Russian Empire. Russia was supportive of the Serbo-Montenegrin struggle against the Ottoman Empire, so relations between the two states developed positively. Russia supplied Montenegro with financial and military assistance, which was of enormous importance in conflicts against the Ottomans. Therefore, when Russia entered the war against Japan in 1904, in a sign of friendship and solidarity, the tiny Principality of Montenegro formally declared war against Japan—much to Japanese horror, I am sure.

The might and muscle of Montenegro proved insufficient, however, to defeat the Japanese, as Russia lost the war and was forced to sign a peace treaty with Japan on September 5, 1905. Yet, while signing the treaty, nobody remembered that Montenegro was also part of the war. Apparently, the Montenegrin government forgot this fact itself, as the peace treaty made no mention of ending hostilities with Montenegro. Therefore, the war between these two continued for another 100 years—until Montenegro became independent again in 2006 and formally signed a peace treaty with Japan upon the reestablishment of diplomatic relations.

For a moment, let us entertain the idea of who won this “war.” To complete this truly difficult task, we must examine the number of casualties and the aftermath. While there are no reliable records of killed and wounded, there is a popular story of Aleksandar Saičić, an officer from Montenegro volunteering in the Russian army, who dueled the best samurai in the Japanese army and won that duel decisively by killing him. This means that Japan suffered one casualty, giving Montenegro the ultimate bragging rights—which is sadly all that matters in terms of geopolitics. We can confidently and sarcastically proclaim that this was a glorious triumph of Montenegro over Japan, and a valuable lesson for the enemies of Montenegro.

Gender and Diplomacy

Reframing the Italian Paradigm
By Cristiano Nardelli

The term ambassador symptomatically conjures the classis image of a distinguished gentleman in a tailored suit, seated behind a stately wooden desk, within the grandeur of an architecturally impressive villa: a man of undeniable stature.

In Italian, the masculine form of the word ambasciatore remains prevalent, reflecting a historical context in which diplomacy has primarily been a male-dominated field. This linguistic representation highlights the enduring impact of historical barriers on our understanding of diplomatic roles: a legacy which is particularly evident within the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, where women have seldom occupied the highest offices. Since its inception, only three women (Susanna Agnelli, Emma Bonino, and Federica Mogherini) have served as ministers, each for relatively brief tenures. Moreover, only one woman, Ambassador Elisabetta Belloni, has held the post of Secretary General since 1862, serving from 2016 to 2021.

Despite gradual advancement, women within the Ministry still contend with a predominantly male institutional culture. Gender dynamics are increasingly acknowledged, and initiatives such as Donne Italiane Diplomatiche (DID) have held a paramount stake in fostering awareness, promoting career advancement, and cultivating a more inclusive environment. These efforts aim to support professional development and to modernise the cultural framework of the Ministry, advocating for mutual support and a sustainable work-life balance.

Currently, female diplomats number approximately 230, constituting just one-fifth of the diplomatic corps. Without question, the constitutional aspiration toward gender parity remains statistically remote in this sector. This disparity is evidently rooted in the enduring traditions of diplomacy, which have historically privileged male-centric models of leadership and engagement. Women were only admitted to the Italian diplomatic service in 1967, following a landmark Constitutional Court ruling (33/1960) that deemed gender-based exclusion from public office unconstitutional. Since then, female representation has grown at an unhurried pace, averaging just 1% annually over the past 15 years, hindered by persistent cultural biases that deter women from pursuing careers outside conventional roles.

Indeed, obstacles remain, both in postings to culturally proximate democracies and in assignments to regions where a traditional marginalisation of women occurs. Ambassador Isa Ghivarelli, in an ANSA Agency interview, has recounted the stereotypes she encountered, particularly in conservative contexts where female diplomats’ assertive engagement in strategic or military negotiations (domains still widely perceived as male territory) is, to say the least, unexpected. Such biases undergo internalisation, leading many women to feel out of place or dismissed from the outset. The path forward lies in institutionalising parity from the beginning, adopting protocols that establish equal footing among interlocutors. Yet the notion of women as authoritative negotiators continues to face resistance, and the balance of power at the diplomatic table remains uneven.

I support, in this regard, what Laura Carpini, Deputy Director for General Global Affairs and former President of DID, aptly observed on several occasions: gender should be incidental to the diplomatic function. What ought to prevail are aptitude, intellectual rigour, and emotional intelligence. And, while neither gender possesses intrinsic superiority, women often bring a legacy of caregiving and relational problem-solving, as noted by psychologist Carol Gilligan. What I perceive is that this perspective could verily improve diplomatic practice, offering nuanced approaches to negotiation and conflict resolution. Likewise, women’s social experiences tend to foster a heightened sensitivity to inclusivity, an attribute less readily cultivated by those who have long benefited from structural privilege. Overall, diverse teams, leveraging their varied compositions, demonstrate a heightened sensitivity to complex realities and are better positioned to address multifaceted challenges. In this respect, femininity may indeed constitute a strategic asset.

According to the European Institute for Gender Equality, Italy continues to trail behind the EU average in workplace gender parity, scoring 65.5 against a regional benchmark of 74.2. Occupational segregation persists, with women disproportionately represented in traditional roles (24% versus 9% for men), reflecting a broader cultural milieu that subtly discourages female participation in fields such as diplomacy. Addressing this imbalance demands both legislative reform and a profound shift in societal attitudes, reimagining diplomacy as a vocation equally suited to all, irrespective of gender.

The Art of Ambiguity in UN Treaties

Writing without Saying, Promising without Committing
By Giacomo Matteo Venditti

In the language of the United Nations, every word is a political decision. Behind phrases like “recognizing the importance” or “reiterating the commitment” lies not bureaucracy, but a strategy: saying something without compromising. Ambiguity, in the multilateral arena, is a form of balance.

A prime example is Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in 2002, on the disarmament of Iraq. The text spoke of “grave violations” and “serious consequences” but carefully avoided the word “authorization”. The United States and the United Kingdom interpreted it as a green light for armed intervention. France and Russia, however, interpreted it as a political warning devoid of coercive force. In a single sentence, the UN managed to reconcile two opposing interpretations, avoiding paralysis in the Council.

A few years later, in 2011, Resolution 1973 on Libya demonstrated the same mechanism. The text authorized “all necessary measures to protect civilians” but did not specify the limits or duration of the intervention. This flexible formula allowed different powers to support military action despite divergent motivations. When the operation turned into a regime change, it became clear how the initial vagueness had left room for conflicting interpretations.

The third case is the 2015 Paris Agreement. The text states that States “commit to pursuing efforts” to contain global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. There are no legal obligations, only “nationally determined” commitments. It is a linguistic compromise that unites nearly two hundred countries with differing capabilities and environmental interests. The words, calibrated to the millimeter, replace imposition with persuasion. This stylistic choice is not an accidental limitation, but a survival mechanism of the UN system. Where consensus cannot be achieved on content, consensus is achieved on language. Better to write a vague text than no text at all.

Indeterminacy thus becomes the glue of multilateralism: it allows UN state members to avoid direct confrontation and maintain open dialogue. Of course, the side effects are operational weaknesses. Many resolutions remain in declarations of principles without concrete consequences. But in a world divided by geopolitical and ideological interests, even an imperfect text can be a success. Ambiguity, in this sense, is not synonymous with ineffectiveness, but rather with diplomatic survival.

Understanding a UN treaty means reading between the lines. Omissions, nuanced adjectives, and conditional verbs are an integral part of the political message. Therein lies the true compromise: the desire not to say everything so as not to close the door to dialogue. In the language of the United Nations, clarity is often a luxury that politics cannot afford. Ambiguity, however, is a form of textual peace: the only way to bring irreconcilable differences together under the same signature.

Diplomacy is Getting Social

Diplomatic Conduct in a Hyperconnected World
By Giulia Diurni

In the age of instant access, major international institutions have had the opportunity to explore new networking technologies. It is a common experience when it comes to finding institutional accounts on social media platforms: from presidents’ personal accounts to the official embassies’ ones. Observing how these actors manage their own contents in relation to international crises is very noteworthy today.

In the context of global crises, embassies have been transformed into digital hubs able to communicate in real time with citizens, media outlets, and other institutions. A notable example is former Italian ambassador in Washington, Mariangela Zappia, who created a solid and practical social strategy aimed at fostering debate on the role of digital platforms in global politics. Throughout the Digital Diplomacy Series, she analyzed digital communication’s impact with the goal, quoting her, of “better understanding the role of technology in diplomacy and engaging with all stakeholders and partners”.

From this perspective, social media appear to be versatile and useful tools for diplomats and their activities. However, is this always the case? The use of social media can be a double-edged sword, where the art of diplomacy, traditionally founded in respect and mediation, risks turning into a provocation and self-promotion mechanism. For instance, on September 6, 2025, during the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova referred to European leaders as “Trump’s mutated seven dwarves”, commenting on a previous analogy made by the Austrian minister Karin Kneissl. The remark, shared via official channels, sparked outrage among several EU representatives.

Since 2012, the presence of institutional accounts has grown exponentially, branching out across most digital platforms: from Facebook to X, from Instagram to TikTok. Embassies’ goal seems to be engaging with an attentive and informed audience, directly pursuing global public opinion to shape the narrative surrounding international tensions. Consequently, social media are becoming instruments of soft power.

Nevertheless, how thin is the line between appropriate and inappropriate application of social media in diplomatic activities? Ethical dilemmas have emerged from the digital conversion of diplomacy, which has rapidly shifted from closed-door negotiations to universally accessible screens. The point is that public exposure of sensitive information can be problematic: cases of hacking, the spread of fake news, and media manipulation have all contributed to a downturn in institutional trust. Hence, the connubium between ethics and technology is overriding. Should diplomats need to follow some specific guidelines for social media communication? Should they receive dedicated training? And how much control do digital platforms have over diplomatic discourse?

In a continually evolving world, where the distinction between truth and falsehood is almost imperceptible, what matters is not only what is communicated, but also who is communicating it. Digital diplomacy is expected to continue growing due to the development of AI, which will bring both innovation opportunities and complex challenges. For this reason, diplomats must act with prudence, driven by ethical principles in every communicative decision. Digital diplomacy cannot be left to improvisation; it must be practiced mindfully and responsibly, especially in a world like ours, where the power of words is stronger than ever.

Seemingly, diplomacy’s future will depend on technological advancement and diplomats’ ability to communicate with integrity, keeping in mind diplomacy’s goal: ensuring peace among peoples.

Prove Me Wrong

The Two-State Solution is Dead
By Gonzalo Rodao

Prove Me Wrong is a new column that dares to challenge conventional wisdom in international affairs, one “hot take” at a time. Each piece begins with a claim that might sound controversial, but is backed by analysis and grounded in fact. The goal isn’t to preach, but to provoke discussion and critical thinking among readers who care about diplomacy, politics, and global change. Agree or disagree, please just don’t stay indifferent.

THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS DEAD.

There, it’s said. And while Trump’s initial unveiling of his shiny Gaza blueprint a couple of days ago had me a tidbit optimistic, it dissipated rather quickly when, for the umpteenth time, proposed peace plans fail to mention or acknowledge Palestinian sovereignty. Yet, as several Western governments have tried to fan the flames of this remedy by formally recognizing the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly, it serves as nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Read any piece of news regarding the conflict, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find any other proposed solution than the two-state solution. As long as the two major players in this conflict, Israel and the United States, refuse to propose/back any peace formula that includes the creation of a sovereign Palestine, it is incredibly ironic and antithetical to the very name of the most popular plan. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not mince his words, quickly declaring that a Palestinian state “will not happen” and that these recognitions are a “reward for terror”.

It has been two years since the start of the Israeli declaration of war against Hamas. Since then, we have witnessed numerous developments that have not boded well for long-term peace and stability in the region. Washington sells a “viable peace plan” but pardon my skepticism if it resembles more like concrete, checkpoints, and cartography by committee (headed by none other than Tony Blair to add insult to injury). Echoing its Prime Minister, the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, has already voted overwhelmingly to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian State in July 2024, 68-9. Additionally, it declares “the Knesset firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state west of Jordan” as such a state would pose an existential threat to Israel. This is not an unfamiliar discourse from the Israeli state; it’s the culmination of decades of Israeli policy.

Settlement expansion has reached record levels, the likes of which we’ve never seen before, has made that policy almost impossible to reverse. More than 50,000 new housing units were advanced in 2025 alone. Projects like E1, which divides the West Bank and isolates East Jerusalem, are now government priorities. Over half a million settlers live beyond the “Green Line”, connected by exclusive roads that carve Palestinian land into disconnected lands. Every bulldozer makes another UN speech meaningless.

The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, is politically bankrupt. Polls show over 80% of Palestinians want Mohammed Abbas to resign; civil servants receive half-salaries, and Israeli tax seizures have pushed the Authority to the brink of bankruptcy. It governs little, inspires no one, and certainly does not resemble a “state-in-waiting”. Meanwhile, support for Hamas remains higher than for the PA (although more from a standpoint of defiance than governance). Reports came out detailing how Hamas’ “shadow units” staged fake protests in 2025 to smuggle Israeli captives successfully through Gaza’s chaos, evading detection by the Israeli military intelligence, spying satellites and “unarmed” surveillance aircraft from diverse Western countries that flew spy missions for two years to locate the hostages. Proof not of strategic brilliance (even though they managed to hide them for 738 days), but of a movement surviving through deception and guerrilla tactics rather than legitimate authority.

And now, at the time of writing this article, we have Trump’s 2025 Gaza plan, lauded as the path to “eternal peace”. Surprisingly enough, and I say this because of the celerity with which it has been a) taken seriously by the other international countries (including the significant power in this conflict) and b) accepted by said countries (at least for the first phase), which includes military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip by Israel. So far, so good, right? Wrong! The plan offers an international trusteeship to administer Gaza, a foreign security force to police it, and a vague “pathway” to self-determination someday, with no commitment whatsoever to sovereignty. Netanyahu celebrated this plan precisely because it excludes a Palestinian state. At the same time, Hamas only accepted the ceasefire and the hostage/prisoner exchange so far, with no promise of disarmament (in fact, they’ve already promised only to disarm when a Palestinian state is created).

What both sides have accepted is a framework to stop the ongoing conflict, not to build lasting peace. It is hard to see this agreement as much more than conflict management with better branding and another band-aid on a seemingly never-healing wound that keeps reopening every decade. Israel gains security control without concession. Hamas gains survival without governance. The international community gains the illusion of progress. And while I certainly do not wish to come across as complaining about the potential end of an ongoing armed conflict that has already claimed too many lives, especially of the civilian kind, it seems that what will remain is one state with two peoples, and radically unequal rights. Prove me wrong.

Feel strongly and disagree with my article? Then by all means, come chat with me and prove me wrong!

Final Word

The developments on the international political level in this past week have shown us again how important it is to stay informed and to reflect upon different perspectives as diplomacy becomes even more important in an ever-increasing polarizing world.

We thank you for your support if you’re reading this and we hope to have provided you with new insights and considerations in this edition of LUSDA’s Diplomatic Digest.

It is our aim to create a space for opinions coming from within the LUISS student community and for informed and respectful discussion on current affairs.

If you want to join as a guest contributor for the next edition, keep out an eye for our topic reveal and call for writers on Instagram. We are curious to know what you think about what is going on in the world! We hope to see you at one of our many upcoming events that are dedicated to shining a light on the diplomatic world and hearing directly from the experts and practitioners that work in it. Come check out our website!