When things go wrong in international affairs, we frequently find people talking about a failure of diplomacy. When something difficult needs to be accomplished, or when a settlement or general improvement in international relations is in prospect, more and better diplomacy is often called for. Newspaper and television editorials, in particular, assure us that the elements of this or that particular international problem are quite clear, as is the range of possible solutions. Governments have committed. Peoples are supportive. It is now, they assert, up to the diplomats. Not only are diplomacy and diplomats important, however, after the best part of a century of apparent decline, the demand for both of them is currently on the rise. It is so in the senses outlined above. It is often asserted, for example, that foreign policy failures, especially those of the United States (US) in the Middle East and in the “War on Terror,” were in some sense caused, or at least made worse, by a lack of effective diplomacy. We even find those closely associated with these failures almost penitently declaring their determination to try more diplomacy in the future. However, this rise is also evidenced in a number of other ways. Both new countries and aspirant ones work hard to obtain diplomatic recognition and build new diplomatic services. New international actors seek changes in the practices of international relations that will permit them to acquire similar sorts of recognition and representation.