The ‘old system’ of diplomacy had prevailed until the end of the First World War; it relied heavily on secret negotiations and was executed by professional diplomats. In contemporary diplomatic relations and under the new diplomacy fashions of parliamentary style debate, questions are raised as to whether the ‘old style’ of diplomacy has any cotemporary relevance.
The ‘new diplomacy’ features openness, inclusiveness and low politics which allows soft power and public diplomacy to grow. Furthermore, new diplomacy includes contemporary global conferences which permit negotiations between continents to subsist. Example of this:

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos (R) welcomes President of the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (L) at the Viana palace in Madrid on September 27, 2010, on the sidelines of the International contact group on Somalia meeting. Representatives of 45 nations and international bodies met in Madrid to consider plans to strengthen an African Union peacekeeping force in war-torn Somalia. AFP

The example I have chosen is significant, it shows that the ’old diplomacy’ has little significance, in the early 1900’s these talks were carried out in secrecy, today all states are insiders and co-exist with the major powers, (this was very different before World War one.) Also, they are allowed to be apart of the focus of upcoming plans: in relation to the African Union peacekeeping force.

On the other hand, there is still evidence that there is a need for the ‘old diplomacy’ in an increasing globalized world the world conferences which have specified, important functions and do not allow time for individual state relations to be addressed, improved or encouraged. In front of a world stage it may be harder for state actors to negotiate to final or even progressive agreements. For example:
June 2008

Iran's president has labelled Israel a "fabricated regime."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cranked up his anti-Israel rhetoric at a news conference on the sidelines of a UN summit on the global food crisis in Rome.

This is just one example, although I would like to note that there are many examples of high politics within the international arena today which have a need to feature closed negotiations. This is to fulfil a stable level of communication and compromise to withhold sates resorting to war.

In conclusion, I think the ‘old diplomacy’ has great contemporary relevance.
In the new diplomacy there are many great opportunities for non-power states to voice their interests in the world stage. Furthermore, contemporary diplomacy has allowed conferences to take place that include major world threats such as the environment. A world conference allows issues to be debated within a parliamentary style and is clearly an attribute for the international community.
However, not all negotiations can take place within the world stage and be successful (or not.) The ‘old diplomacy’ allocates closed negotiations between states to exist and to communicate away from the world media and other non-actors involved within the world stage. In times of high level politics which include substantial terrorism and nuclear proliferation from totalitarian regimes, there will always be a need for certain closed and exclusive meetings.

Please feel free to explore some of the links that interested me when writing this blog:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100401a1.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iranian-President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-Says-Israel-Will-Disappear/Article/200806115005407?lid=ARTICLE_15005407_Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Says Israel Will Disappear&lpos=searchresults