By that stage, many of the dynamics that influence an outcome have already begun to take shape.

Through my engagement with United Nations processes and broader multilateral discussions, one observation has become increasingly clear:

Some of the most consequential work in diplomacy happens before formal negotiations begin.

It happens through agenda-setting.

Often perceived as a procedural stage of international processes, agenda-setting is, in practice, one of the most consequential forms of diplomatic influence.

The issues elevated for consideration, the questions introduced into global discourse, and the frameworks used to interpret complex challenges can shape the direction of future negotiations.

Before states negotiate positions, they often establish, advance, and contest priorities.

Before delegates negotiate language, they often shape the parameters of the conversation itself.

Before consensus is reached, the space of possible outcomes is already being shaped.

This is why diplomacy extends far beyond the formal negotiating room.

International outcomes are shaped through consultations, coalition-building, policy research, informal dialogues, technical discussions, draft resolutions, and sustained engagement among governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, and other stakeholders.

However, agenda-setting is not a neutral process.

It reflects the interaction of institutional mandates, political priorities, expertise, resources, and the ability of different actors to bring issues into global focus.

The way an issue is framed matters.

Migration provides a useful example.

When migration is viewed primarily through a security lens, policy discussions may emphasize borders, enforcement, and control.

When examined through humanitarian, economic, and development perspectives, different policy considerations and response pathways emerge.

Framing does not merely describe a challenge.

It influences how the international community understands that challenge, whose perspectives are elevated, and which solutions become more visible, credible, and achievable.

This is why diplomatic actors invest significant effort before negotiations begin.

They build coalitions.

They develop shared understanding.

They advance ideas through international discourse.

They create the conditions in which agreements become possible.

For students and practitioners of international affairs, this offers an important reflection:

Diplomatic influence is not exercised only through the positions presented at the table.

It is also exercised through the ability to identify emerging issues, contribute expertise, build partnerships, frame complex challenges, convene stakeholders, and influence the environment in which collective decisions are made.

Negotiation remains central to diplomacy.

But before negotiation comes an equally important question:

What will the international community negotiate, and how will it understand the issue before doing so?

In international affairs, influencing the agenda is often the first step toward shaping meaningful outcomes.

A question for diplomats, practitioners, scholars, and students of international affairs:

Where do you believe diplomatic influence is most effectively exercised beyond the negotiating table?

Subscribe now