The use of criticism as a foreign policy tool is ubiquitous in international relations. While ‘naming and shaming’ as a distinct form of criticism has received much attention in the literature, we still lack a thorough understanding of the variety of ways through which states criticize each other - particularly so between allies or friendly states that share common values.
This article seeks to fill this gap by unpacking an alternative form of criticism, i.e. constructive criticism. It proposes an innovative theoretical framework featuring the discursive strategies involved in this type of criticism, the emotional mechanisms at play – based on recognition and hope – and the rationale held by states resorting to this diplomatic practice. We argue that constructive criticism allows states to balance the expression of disapproval with the preservation of relationships, especially among allies sharing common values.
We illustrate our argument with a qualitative content analysis of European leaders’ public statements and tweets issued during the Netanyahu government’s attempt to reform Israel’s judicial system, threatening Israel’s democracy and shared values around which European states used to converge - as well as interviews with European diplomats based in Israel. As such, this research contributes to the theorization of constructive criticism within the unique context of diplomatic communication.
