Editorial Standards & Principles

Diplomatique™ exercises independent editorial judgment in the selection, development and publication of its work. Contributors, advisers, interviewees and members of associated advisory bodies do not necessarily endorse material published by Diplomatique™ or the views of other contributors.

Commercial relationships, subscriptions, sponsorships or professional associations do not determine editorial conclusions.

This distinction matters because members of the Guiding Principles™ Advisory Board may contribute articles, interviews, quotations or specialist counsel to Diplomatique™. Their participation does not imply collective endorsement by the Advisory Board.

Diplomatique™ seeks to establish material facts from primary sources wherever practicable, including official documents, treaties, legislation, government statements, public records, institutional reports and original interviews.

But documents rarely tell the whole story.

Our analysis is also informed by an extensive international network built over decades of engagement across government, diplomacy, business, security, faith and civil society. These relationships include serving and former political leaders, diplomats, military officers, business leaders, policy practitioners and others with direct experience of the countries, institutions and issues about which we write.

That network is strengthened by the experience and relationships of the Diplomatique™ Advisory Board and the wider Guiding Principles™ community. It gives us something different from desk-based research alone: the ability to listen to people close to events, test assumptions against experience on the ground, and understand how decisions are being received beyond official statements and headlines.

Such perspectives inform our understanding; they do not replace verification.

Primary material may therefore be supplemented by reputable news reporting, academic and specialist research, reliable data, original conversations and informed professional or diplomatic perspectives. Where information is provided privately or on background, we apply editorial judgment to its use and do not present opinion or informed perspective as established fact.

Significant factual assertions, quotations and statistics are subject to editorial verification before publication. Where facts remain uncertain, disputed or incomplete, Diplomatique™ seeks to make that uncertainty clear.

Articles carry a Sources & Notes section where the record benefits from it.

Relationships deepen the inquiry. Evidence anchors the record.

Diplomatique™ distinguishes between established fact, reported information, analysis, informed judgment and opinion.

Geopolitical analysis necessarily involves interpretation. Where Diplomatique™ draws conclusions from incomplete or developing information, those conclusions are identifiable as analysis rather than presented as settled fact.

Contributed essays represent the perspective of their named authors unless expressly stated otherwise.

Accuracy matters. When Diplomatique™ identifies a material factual error, we seek to correct it promptly and transparently.

Material corrections to published articles are ordinarily identified by a correction or update note rather than by silently altering the historical record. Articles may also be updated as events develop, new evidence becomes available or additional context materially improves the analysis.

Every digital article carries its publication date and, where relevant, the date of its most recent update. The public register is kept at Corrections & Updates.

Diplomatique™ draws upon a wider community of practitioners, scholars, diplomats, military leaders, business leaders, investors, educators and others with relevant experience.

Members of the Guiding Principles™ Advisory Board may contribute essays, interviews, commentary or specialist counsel. Participation by an individual adviser does not constitute endorsement of Diplomatique™ editorial positions by the Advisory Board collectively.

Where a contributor has a professional, financial or institutional interest materially relevant to the subject of an article, an appropriate disclosure accompanies the work. See Contributors.

Diplomatique™ makes considered use of artificial intelligence and other computational tools in its research and editorial work. We regard these technologies neither as substitutes for human judgment nor as something to be concealed, but as tools which, when used well, can extend the range and depth of serious inquiry.

AI may assist with research, transcription, translation, data analysis, comparison of sources, identification of patterns and connections, testing of arguments, editorial development and production.

Its use within Diplomatique™ is shaped by our editorial method. Our established lenses help determine the questions we ask of source material — examining events through questions of power and statecraft, strategic geography, ethics and responsibility, faith and public life, religious freedom, and peace and post-conflict transformation. AI can help us examine more material and challenge an argument from more than one direction. It does not decide what we should conclude.

That distinction matters.

Artificial intelligence can retrieve, compare, interrogate and suggest. It can also be wrong. It can reproduce errors, flatten nuance, misunderstand context and, if used carelessly, generate apparently convincing material for which there is no reliable evidence.

For that reason, AI-generated output is not treated as a source in itself. Material facts, quotations, citations, statistics and substantive claims are subject to human editorial review and, where appropriate, verification against the underlying source material. Diplomatique™ does not knowingly publish fabricated sources, quotations or evidence generated by artificial intelligence.

Nor do these tools replace something central to our work: human relationships. Conversations with people who know countries, institutions and events from direct experience can reveal context that neither a database nor an algorithm can supply. Technology can broaden the inquiry; experience, relationships and judgment help us understand what matters.

The responsibility remains human.

Responsibility for published material rests with its named author and/or the editors of Diplomatique™, not with an automated system. The question for Diplomatique™ is therefore not whether artificial intelligence was involved in producing a piece of work, but whether the resulting work meets our standards for evidence, judgment, attribution and editorial responsibility.

AI can widen the inquiry. It cannot carry the responsibility.

Diplomatique™ contributors and editors disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably be considered materially relevant to the subject under discussion. Where appropriate, such relationships are disclosed to readers alongside the relevant article. The test is material relevance.

Diplomatique™ seeks neither certainty where certainty does not exist nor artificial balance where the evidence does not support it.

We seek to represent material competing arguments fairly, identify the evidence upon which conclusions rest and distinguish disagreement over facts from disagreement over their meaning.

Our purpose is not merely to report events, but to help readers understand their significance and consider what may follow.