灾害外交网站www.disasterdiplomacy.org

The evidence from Disaster Diplomacy studies so far suggests that, while disaster-related activities do not create fresh diplomatic opportunities, they have the possibility of catalyzing action, although that possibility is not always fulfilled. The three outcomes from Disaster Diplomacy work so far are:

• In the short-term--on the order of weeks and months--disaster-related activities can, but do not always, impact diplomacy. Disaster-related activities can influence diplomatic activities and spur them on, as long as a pre-existing basis was present for the diplomacy, with examples being cultural connections, trade links, or secret negotiations.
  
• Over the long-term--in terms of years--non-disaster factors have a more significant impact on diplomacy than disaster-related activities. Examples are leadership changes, distrust, belief that an historical conflict or grievance should take precedence over present-day humanitarian and peace needs, or priorities for action other than conflict resolution and diplomatic dividends.
  
• Disaster-related activities sometimes have the opposite outcome: they can exacerbate conflict and reduce diplomacy.
  

Disaster Diplomacy examines the role of disaster-related activities not just in international affairs and international relations, but also in political conflicts not involving more than one independent state. Disaster Diplomacy also embraces a wide definition of "disaster", not just rapid-onset events such as earthquakes and industrial explosions, but also events which are more diffuse in space and time such as droughts, epidemics, and global changes. These latter events have been termed "chronic disasters", "creeping changes", and "disaster conditions" amongst other terms.