The most important function of diplomacy, regardless of its scope or its actors, is communication. In a sense diplomacy is communication itself. Another major function of diplomacy is representation. The main instrument of representation is embassies and its main actors are ambassadors, consulates, attaches and other diplomatic personnel. Monitoring the receiving state is one of the oldest functions of diplomacy. The aim of monitoring is to gather information about the receiving state and report this information to the sending state. The correct answer is Choice C.

After long lasting fights, Peace of Lodi in 1454 brought a certain degree of peace and stability to the region (Mattingly, 1955: 77). Most noteworthy aspect of Peace of Lodi was that it institutionalized the functional equality among Italian city states. In other words, regardless of their size, power and location, Italian city states came to a consensus in which they are all treated and assumed equivalent to each other. At this point, it should be noted that the principle of functional equality can be considered as the main constituting element of modern diplomacy. In fact, diplomatic interaction between two political entities only started after the mutual acceptance of equivalency by both parties in the medieval and Renaissance Europe. In this regard, the institutionalization of equality through Peace of Lodi accelerated the emergence of diplomatic customs as a legitimate practice in Italian Peninsula. 

The main actors of diplomacy, as it is traditionally accepted regardless of its scope, are foreign ministers along with other employees of the ministry and the diplomatic agents in foreign countries, that is the head of mission and members of the diplomatic staff of the mission. 

Until the reign of Abdulhamid II (1876-1909) the major ally of the Ottoman Empire was the Great Britain. 

It is generally accepted that modern diplomacy practices the started in Italy. The correct answer is Choice A.

options A,B, and D are related with France.

With the Peace of Westphalia, German principalities institutionalized the notion of resident ambassador just like Italian city states did in the 16th century. In the beginning, most of the principals sent their envoys to Brandenburg-Prussia and other great powers in the German world. In the longer run, keeping a permanent diplomatic mission in other countries spread all over German principalities. Principals preferred to have resident diplomatic missions mostly in farer principalities, as closer or neighboring principalities were accessible through short trips.

The British also copied and internalized these diplomatic customs. British envoys were sent to the states of the continental Europe mainly after the Peace of Westphalia. Britain, being one of the actors in the peace talks, did not withdraw its committee from Münster and Osnabrück, two German-speaking cities where peace talks took place, and distributed this team later to Sweden, France, Brandenburg-Prussia and Denmark. Although several British diplomatic missions were sent to other countries earlier, resident ambassadors in European countries became a British diplomatic custom mainly after 1648.

France can be noted as one exception to this. Although France did have envoys and resident diplomatic missions in several countries as early as the beginnings of 16th century, it did not follow the general European fashion to build resident and constant diplomatic missions in European capitals. Yet, France has come forward as the country which kept most active contact with the Muslim world. French envoys were sent to Ottoman Empire in 1535 and Safavid Empire (present day Iran) in 1600s (Black, 2010: 54). Still, France was late to institutionalize the resident ambassadors compared to other primary European powers. Yet, it is also worthy to note that once the French developed their own diplomatic system, it was admired by other European states as it was first fully-developed system of diplomacy (Berridge, 2010: 103). 

It can be asked why in the Renaissance Italy, but not somewhere else, did the early institutions of modern democracy emerge. Three important factors can be noted. Firstly, the political equation among small Italian city states facilitated the consolidation of diplomacy as a preferred tool for solution of the problems in the Peninsula. Italian city states were in fact feudal units controlled by certain dynasties. Secondly, the common language that is shared by all these small city states served as another facilitator for diplomatic progress in the region. Despite the lack of a political unity among the city states, there was a linguistic unity among them. Italian, being the lingua franca in the Peninsula, was accepted as the common language for any form of correspondence among the city states. Thirdly, the small scale political organization due to over-fragmented political structure in the Peninsula rendered some other coercive political tools such as war much more costly and ineffective. Italian city states were quite small in terms of their size and capacities.  The correct answer is E.

Diplomacy in the Islamic world began with the establishment of the first Islamic state in 622; and it was not founded through military means but by a social contract, the Medina Charter. (Khan, 2006). The Charter was an agreement settling the inter-tribal conflict between Muslims, Jews and pagans; and it constituted a free state of a pluralistic community. It is a constitution which provided for dispute resolution, a tax system, rights and responsibilities to both Muslims and non-Muslims. 

After defeating Napoleon following long-lasting and bloody wars, European monarchs gathered in Vienna to discuss the conditions for restoration of monarchy in France and setting the new balance of power. Political implications of the Congress of Vienna are plenty and important, but here we focus mainly on the effects of the Congress on the diplomatic institutions.

Firstly, the Congress set the idea of “balance of power” as a steady diplomatic priority for European monarchs (Kissinger, 1994: 325). European monarchs aimed at constructing a diplomatic context in which all actors react similarly and in a coordinated manner in case of an attempt by any other power to dominate European neighbors. In this sense, the Congress determined the content of the new diplomatic context in Europe, and this content put balance of power before any other agenda items. This can be considered as a collective security umbrella for the European states system. Hence, it is fair to argue that the Congress of Vienna introduced collective security conceptions into the agenda of diplomacy, which continued to be one of the most important agenda items in European diplomacy in the following centuries as well. Secondly, the Congress of Vienna enclaved diplomacy into a conservative sphere. In fact, the Concert of Europe that came out of the Congress was quite a conservative order in the sense that it relied on the absolute preservation of monarchies all around Europe. European diplomacy and permanent diplomatic missions agreed on that European states should be ruled with monarchies and legitimacy of these political systems does not need a popular vote. In this regard, European diplomatic machinery aimed at preservation of this system and act collaboratively against any challenge to monarchies. 

The first thing that has to be defined would be the scope of diplomacy since the other elements such as actors and tasks could only be determined according to how broad the scope is defined. When the term is taken in a narrow sense it usually describes political relations between states and includes the practices of the diplomats and ministries of foreign affairs. That is why history of international relations between states is defined as diplomatic history. Defining diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy is not incorrect but is incomplete. In modern international relations it is no longer possible to define diplomacy only in terms of foreign policy or political relations between states that is carried out by statesmen and diplomats. The scope of diplomacy has expanded through the course of history. In several periods in history the scope of diplomacy has become a matter of discussion among the theoreticians and practitioners of diplomacy. Many have mentioned and accepted that there was old diplomacy and a new diplomacy. This points to the evolving character of diplomacy. Each era has a new diplomacy of its own. This is especially true for the twenty-first century. For this reason, it is necessary to adopt a broader approach. The correct answer is Choice C.

In the heydays of the Ottoman Empire, its relations with foreign states were not based on mutuality, but on unilaterality. This system was known as the Âman (Mercy) System. Âman was the privilege or immunity granted by the sultan to foreigners or non-Muslims. This system which protected the rights of non-Muslims within the boundaries of the empire was unilaterally granted by the Ottomans. (Turan, 26)

Although they did not establish permanent embassies in foreign states before the 18th century, the Ottomans allowed foreign states to establish diplomatic missions in the empire. Venice was the first state opened an embassy in Istanbul right after the conquest. It was followed by Poland (1475), Russia (1497), France (1525), Austria (1528), the Great Britain (1583) and the Netherlands (1612). (İskit, 147- 148) 

Most noteworthy aspect of Peace of Lodi was that it institutionalized the functional equality among Italian city states.

A version of coercive diplomacy is military diplomacy which can be described as the use of force of threat of it to achieve military goals. The use of naval force for the same ends is referred as gunboat diplomacy. Therefore, the correct option is A

The Interwar Period refers to the specific period between 1918 and 1939.

The first known diplomatic letter was a message sent by the King of Ebla (in northern Syria) to the kingdom of Hamazi (north of Iran today), which shows a similar style of language and contend of modern diplomacy. This letter provides a clear evidence of the existence of a well performing mechanism, in which both sides knew the rules. The letter was not written by the king himself, but through the voice of an official, and was not directed to the Hamazi King but to his envoy (Podany, 2010: 27). Since the Ebla region had priority in trade, diplomacy was mainly a part of their trade relations, the reflection of which could also be seen in the Ebla letter. The correct answer is Choice A.

Today, almost all the states in the world have a specific ministry in charge of determining and conducting foreign policy. Yet, this was not the in case. Modern foreign ministries originated mainly from European states, and it has not been even 250 years that the first foreign ministry was founded under government structure (Berridge, 2010: 5). As diplomacy was professionalized and acknowledged as a field which requires special expertise and training, the states of Europe also recognized the need for a specific ministry under the government which is solely responsible from the conduct of foreign policy. France was again the first country which initiated a specific department responsible from the foreign policy. In Ancien Régime, Henry III initiated a department and gave the sole responsibility in foreign policy to a specific department under the government as early as 1589 (Berridge, 2010: 6).  

As noted above, it would be an exaggeration to argue that the major principles of permanent diplomacy changed due to the end of the Cold War. Yet, it would also be flawed to neglect the fact that certain significant developments gained momentum. Firstly, the nature of foreign policy shifted from a pure state-centric to a more multi-actor and multi-factorial ground. Neack (2008) calls this new form of foreign policy as “new foreign policy” and argues that new foreign policy has the characteristics mentioned below:

• “Foreign policy is made and conducted in complex domestic and international environments.
• Foreign policy results from the work of coalitions of interested domestic and international actors and groups.
• Foreign policy issues are often linked and delinked, reflecting the strength of various parties and their particular concerns.
• The “stuff” of foreign policy derives from issues of domestic politics as well as foreign relations.
• Foreign policy analysis needs to be multilevel and multifaceted in order to confront the complicated sources and nature of foreign policy.” (Neack, 2008: 6). 

 One of the earlier of these theories belongs to Nicollo Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s formulation of diplomacy is based on his experience of serving as diplomat of Florence, his home city, until the fall of the republic in Florence in 1512. During his career Machiavelli took part in the foreign relations of Florence with both other Italian city-states and foreign countries. His theory of diplomacy can be read through his works The Prince, The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy and The History of Florence. Another Florentine diplomat who has contributed to the theory of diplomacy is Francesco Guicciardini. The main theme in Guicciardini’s theory, which is generally outlined in his History of Italy, is the value of good ambassadors, which he sees as a source of prestige for the price. Hugo Grotius, who is a great opponent of war and deems it acceptable when it is just, and for this reason according to him diplomacy has a vital role. His work Three Books On the Law of War and Peace is the reflection of this approach. He defines three methods to accommodate misunderstandings among states without a war. French statesmen Richelieu has also formulated ideas on diplomacy. His theory of diplomacy can be derived from his Political Testament, in which he has penned political advice for Louis XIII. Having become the French prime minister in an age of continuous wars, Richelieu’s main concern was to establish peace and carry out peaceful relations with other states. The first significant diplomatic writer of the twentieth century is Ernest Satow. Satow owes his reputation in diplomatic theory to his book Guide to Diplomatic Practice, which was the first remarkable book in English language about the theory and practice of diplomacy when it was published in 1917. The correct answer is Choice B.

As elaborated earlier, diplomatic practices and interaction did exist among political entities even in ancient times elsewhere in the world. Yet, the content of these diplomatic practices were far from being a model for modern diplomatic customs. The biggest obstacle for cultivation of a systematic diplomatic custom was, of course, the issue of continuity. Diplomatic interactions of the ancient world were built upon quite an intermittent structure and shaped in an issue-specific manner. They did play a role in the formation of customs in the field of trade and crystallization of the borders. Yet, the modern diplomacy, which required continuity and constant contact, emerged in the Renaissance Italy. The content of the diplomatic practices in the Renaissance Italy focused mainly on long term alliances, customs union, and defense against the intervention that would potentially come from non-Italian Europe. The correct answer is D.