Abstract
This study explores the interpretive misalignments that frequently occur within the domain of international relations, diplomatic communications, and the drafting and analysis of official state documents. Focusing on the nature and quality of diplomatic critique, it investigates the implications of multi-layered textual reading in international affairs. Specifically, it dissects the operational definitions, scope, interrelations, and distinctive features of four interpretive modes literal, allegorical, ethical/moral, and anagogical (long-term strategic or transcendental) readings within the framework of diplomacy. The article posits that the varying cultural, educational, and professional backgrounds of diplomats, international legal scholars, and state officials significantly contribute to divergent, and occasionally distorted, interpretations of diplomatic language. In response to this challenge, the study advocates for an internationally responsible model of reading, wherein diplomatic actors are intellectually grounded in global history, comparative literature, jurisprudence, and political theory. Overreliance on narrowly sourced frameworks or monolithic diplomatic traditions, it argues, can induce conceptual tunnel vision and superficial engagement in international negotiation an idea metaphorically illustrated through the example of “rhododendron honey.” Drawing on Dante Aligheri’s fourfold reading schema (Aligheri, 2024), Cassianus’s interpretive classifications (Cassian, 1997), and the normative discourses from multiple diplomatic cultures, the paper proposes a teleological (goal-oriented and peace-centered) lens for interpreting state communications and international treaties.