Since World War I scholars and practitioners alike have addressed themselves to defining and assessing the "new diplomacy," which the British diplomatist Harold Nicolson has branded the "American method." He distinguishes contemporary practice from earlier forms of diplomacy which, in The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (1954), on the basis of historical orientation, he designates the Greek, Roman, Italian, and French "systems" of diplo­ macy, in this order. Intensified multilaterial, as differentiated from bilateral, diplomacy - or what Lord Maurice Hankey treats as Diplomacy by Con­ ference (1946) - has become one of the principal qualities characterizing twentieth century diplomatic usage. "Conference diplomacy," in turn, consists of both ad hoc and regularized components. The latter, sometimes designated "parliamentary diplomacy," is essentially a form of institutionalized conferencing permeating the func­ tioning of permanent mechanisms called international organizations. Within them member states pursue national and collective interests and espouse national policies, confer and negotiate respecting mutual problems, engage in forensic and often public exposition, and reduce decision making, but usually only ostensibly, to a formalized voting process.