Through cautiously explicated intuition and rigorous case study analysis, Emotional Diplomacy introduces a new theoretical framework for the interpretation of state action. Building on both realist and structuralist platforms, Todd Hall ambitiously endeavors to explain why states deviate from the traditional tactics as described by Morgenthau: bargaining, persuasion, and coercion. Hall argues that these tools are inadequate, and that states must utilize emotional tools in order to make emotional gains. While conventional power resources may not be able to convey repentance or reformation, Hall's postulation of the Diplomacy of Guilt, however, could. Emotional Diplomacy introduces an emotional framework to analyses of international relations. Hall claims that states are already choosing to project emotions—and reacting to the emotions projected by others—in consequential ways, yet current theories of power and politics are not equipped to examine them.

Acknowledging that his is a foray into the new, Hall starts off small, introducing the reader to three emotional diplomacies: anger, sympathy, and guilt. Despite only looking at these emotions, the cases are well-supported, well-articulated, and readily applicable to other emotions and case studies. Hall also chooses to focus on three high-risk interactions: the Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China's responses to 9/11, and the Federal Republic of Germany's relations with Israel post World War II. Hall explains that in these cases, more than any others, acting “frivolously” would not be wise politically (p. 11). As such, the volatile or seemingly disproportional reactions of states cannot be overlooked and must be understood as fitting within an ulterior motive. Even so, Hall still offers a few smaller, lower-risk, historical instances to re-examine using his framework, continuing to make his case.

Hall makes two distinct points in his introduction which are relied upon throughout, the first of which is the salience of emotional interpretation. Drawing from studies in psychology, Hall makes the assumption that people of all cultures display and interpret emotion in the same way; anger carries with it some intrinsic characteristics, and angry actions will always be accurately interpreted as such. The second point is the distinction between emotions at the personal level and the state level. It makes an intuitive sense that one state would react with grief or anger to the tragedy or instigations of another as people on an individual level would do the same. However, since states are a collective, not an organic body, they should not react in the same spontaneous visceral fashion that an individual would. Hall's discussion revolves around instances in which an entire state, through multiple levels of government, presents a collective, calculated, and enforced emotional response, as a means of acknowledging that a line has been crossed.

While theorists would find each of his emotional diplomacies useful, readers of this Journal may find his Diplomacy of Anger chapter of particular interest. To illustrate his suggestions, he uses the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait Crisis as a case study. After a comprehensive review of the lead-up, play-out, and aftermath of the incident, Hall first examines the crisis from a traditional perspective, viewing the actions of the PRC as actions of coercion, pointing out areas where actions appear not particularly effective or out of synch with what one would expect, such as the initially unconcerned stance taken by the US and the rapid “cooling-off” on the part of the PRC. Re-examining the crisis from the perspective of his own framework solves most of these, and reveals them to be strategic actions which ultimately work in the PRC's favor.

Hall makes a concerted effort to distinguish between his diplomatic emotions and the traditional facets of influence. The differences between anger and coercion appear to be threefold: expressive, temporal, and inferred. While coercion relies on the idea of an upfront list of demands and consequences delivered prior to incidence, anger incorporates an “immediate lashing out” accompanied by “expressive gestures and moral posturing.” (p. 52) The inferred component is slightly more nuanced; in a coercive gesture, cards are on the table, as it were. With gestures made in anger, there is an underlying assumption made by other players that not only could the reactions become exponentially more unstable, but also that, given the proper response by other actors, the anger will dissipate quickly. It is this inferred aspect that is possibly the most interesting of Hall's theory; it requires that theorists acknowledge that with emotional posturing on the part of states comes an inherent, equally emotional reaction to and interpretation of said emotions by other states.

In addition to the emotional diplomacies, Hall iterates the importance of a normative perspective in inter-state actions and reactions. With each of anger, sympathy, and guilt comes the implication of a line having been crossed by someone, and also an acknowledgment of the existence of said line. Building on this, Hall brings in the concept of “sensitivity”; after a few plays it becomes evident which topics are sensitive to a state, and may garner disproportionate reactions (such as Taiwanese independence). Hall is almost tentative in his presentation of his theory. He himself suggests multiple avenues of further inquiry, and attempts to explain potential problems anywhere he sees them. It is evident that, while adamant that his theory is a necessary addition to the study of international relations, Hall is very aware that it is a new formulation and he remains open to critique.

In Hall's own words, his book “sought to add an additional tool to the toolbox of theories international relations scholars use to explain state behavior.” Supplementing a rich theoretical framework with a set of compelling case studies and an in-depth conceptual exploration, Hall's work is an important contribution to the study of international relations. While his theory is not radical enough to undercut existing theoretical narratives, he provides persuasive evidence in support of his thesis that contemporary analyses must be extended to non-material state aspirations.