negotiated himself. The issue of how ambassadors were selected and their actual responsibilities was relegated to the background, but they were a feature of the empire. xxxiv The administrative ambiguities aforementioned were re-echoed with regard to the internal organization of the Empire. Some of the borders were highly porous so that one was not certain when entering or leaving the jurisdiction of the empire. Even areas under the empire did not have a uniform pattern of administration. It depended on how an area in question came to be under the empire. Some areas had belonged to subdued tribes, others were varieties of client kingdoms, yet others were provinces under senatorial authority as opposed to the imperial control. Lack of records seems to suggest the lack of development of diplomatic relationship with any other entity. Rome did not use diplomacy to maintain supremacy; rather it adopted methods of maintaining long distance legal and commercial business principally within the empire. However a system of legal principles, the code of Justinian became the foundation of diplomatic law. In the same token, Rome was very clear on the legality of warfare as there were procedures to denote war and peace. Indeed this aspect provided a legal distinction between just and unjust war or brigandage. The only institution that developed in Rome which had some function in international relations was the college of Fetiales. This college had a number of roles some of which included; according appropriate responses in cases of apparent threats, for instance, it could inform the adversary on issues under contestation and demand certain actions within a specified timeframe. When the time given elapsed and war was imminent, certain formulae had to be cited along the enemy’s border all in an attempt to prevent the escalation of hostilities. Indeed the onset of peace was marked by the sacrifice of a pig in what was an oathing ceremony sworn at the time and woe unto him who was the first to break it, for a curse would befall him. None of the twenty members of the college was bestowed any rights or duties in the formulation and implementation of policy. xxxv This was evidence of how Rome handled diplomacy in what can be described as a mixed approach. While on one hand great efforts were put to prevent war, war did occur especially during the conquests that saw the expansion of the empire. The legal connotations of diplomacy may be seen to have been the hallmark of Roman Empire diplomacy. 2.3 The Byzantine Empire
negotiated himself. The issue of how ambassadors were selected and their actual responsibilities was relegated to the background, but they were a feature of the empire. xxxiv The administrative ambiguities aforementioned were re-echoed with regard to the internal organization of the Empire. Some of the borders were highly porous so that one was not certain when entering or leaving the jurisdiction of the empire. Even areas under the empire did not have a uniform pattern of administration. It depended on how an area in question came to be under the empire. Some areas had belonged to subdued tribes, others were varieties of client kingdoms, yet others were provinces under senatorial authority as opposed to the imperial control. Lack of records seems to suggest the lack of development of diplomatic relationship with any other entity. Rome did not use diplomacy to maintain supremacy; rather it adopted methods of maintaining long distance legal and commercial business principally within the empire. However a system of legal principles, the code of Justinian became the foundation of diplomatic law. In the same token, Rome was very clear on the legality of warfare as there were procedures to denote war and peace. Indeed this aspect provided a legal distinction between just and unjust war or brigandage. The only institution that developed in Rome which had some function in international relations was the college of Fetiales. This college had a number of roles some of which included; according appropriate responses in cases of apparent threats, for instance, it could inform the adversary on issues under contestation and demand certain actions within a specified timeframe. When the time given elapsed and war was imminent, certain formulae had to be cited along the enemy’s border all in an attempt to prevent the escalation of hostilities. Indeed the onset of peace was marked by the sacrifice of a pig in what was an oathing ceremony sworn at the time and woe unto him who was the first to break it, for a curse would befall him. None of the twenty members of the college was bestowed any rights or duties in the formulation and implementation of policy. xxxv This was evidence of how Rome handled diplomacy in what can be described as a mixed approach. While on one hand great efforts were put to prevent war, war did occur especially during the conquests that saw the expansion of the empire. The legal connotations of diplomacy may be seen to have been the hallmark of Roman Empire diplomacy. 2.3 The Byzantine Empire
COL%20PIUS%20MIGUE%20(1).docx