College aantekeningen
Notes for Exam 2 (IR)
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
Lecture notes of 45 pages for the course International Relations at UvA (Lectures 8-13)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 45 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 45 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Lecture 8: Foreign Policy Analysis, Cold War and post-Cold War IR, and New SecurityStudies
Structure:
I. Unilateralism and isolationism in American foreign policy?
II. Decision-making theories + FPA (J/S/M)
III. The impact of the Cold War on IR
IV. End of Cold War: consequences for the study of security (Copenhagen School)
V. New Cold War: ideology or energy?
VI. Post-Cold War and Power Transition
I. Unilateralism and isolationism in American foreign policy?
Traditions in American foreign policy:
Isolationism versus internationalism
Varieties of internationalism:
+ When we look at the american foreign policy traditions we see that there is a
‘Hamiltonianism’ power politics in one hand or a ‘Wilsonianism’ world order strategy on the
other hand (Walter Russell Mead: Special Providence, 2002). This suggests that there is
something different at stake than the Rational actor model (RAM) suggests taking the state
as unitary actor.
+ Realism or idealism + Unilateralism or multilateralism
+ Republicans versus Democrats?
II. Decision-making theories + FPA (J/S/M)
Decision-making theories:
- Rational actor model (RAM)/state as unitary actor: we can talk about deunited states
foreign policy as a kind of single entity, unitary actor. This comes close to a kind of neorealist
perspective foreign policy; according to realists there is no difference whether there is a
republican or democratic president (the international system demands national responses
independent from political affiliation, right or left, liberal or conservative). Political affiliation
makes sense in domestic politics, ex: Obama care but not in terms of foreign policy, in the
international system states act following action reaction patterns → determined rationally.
Rationality is very important and basically means that while facing a decision making
process, they have all the information available about its national constituencies but also
about the preferences of other states. This model is criticised from different perspectives
(chapter 10 of J/S/M or chap 2 Holman).
A) Bureaucratic politics model B) Cognitive processes / constructivist turn
C) Theory of the Military Industrial Complex D) Comparative politics approach
E) IPE and foreign policy
, A. Bureaucratic politics model
● This model critics the RAM model:
It we use the RAM and we compare the Bureaucratic politics: compare the US - EU. When
we talk about the state here the hadley can assess the state as an unitary actor.
USA: EU: (more complex)
President + staff President Eur.Council
Vice-president + staff President Eur.Comm.
Security council: very influential in foreign HR CFSP + staff
policy Individual commissioners
Min. of Foreign Affairs Directorates-general
Pentagon: ministry of defence, important Coreper
Military + general staff Nat. Bureaucracies
Congress: active role in formulation of Nat. Min. of Foreign Affairs + COGs
foreign policy
Business: important bc presidential
candidates need funding for their
campaigns, influential.
● Directorates-general EC:
Agriculture and rural development Maritime affairs and fisheries
Competition Health and consumers
Economic and Financial affairs Information society and media
Education and culture Internal market
Employment, social affairs and inclusion Justice, freedom and security
Energy and transport Regional policy
Enterprise and industry Research and innovation
Environment Taxation and customs Union
The European bureaucracy is divided in different departments (+++ complex and divided:
each of them has their own preferences and interests). This creates the illusion of the state
as an unitary actor. J/S/M refer as “Group Think” => Second critique of Rational choice/RAM:
the state is not unitary but also as a result of groupthink and outcome we have suboptimal or
even irrational decisions => Group think is an important factor in determining the interests of
a subsector of the bureaucracy, and when this particular sub sector can bring its own
particular interests to the level of the states the outcome = Suboptimal and Irrational.
B. Cognitive processes / constructivist turn:
The assumption of rationality in the RAM model is criticized by literature stressing on the
psychological aspects of foreign policy decision making. More in general, one could argue
that in strong democratic states there are in off checks and balances to control potentially
irrational leaders. In general there are all kinds of cognitive constraints in the D-M process.
The assumption of rationality is that there is an availability of knowledge (own preferences
,and of the preferences of other states) this is not always the case, but when it comes to
international crises when we have to take short term important decisions, then there's not
always in off information to make rational and optimal decisions. In times of crisis decision
making is characterized by all kinds of cognitive constraints (level of ideas rather than just
material interests).
The constructivist turn also has an impact of theorising on foreign policy, its argument is that
“ideas, norms, values, traditions are important in explaining foreign policy of states”.
Countries have “strategic culture”: ex: posts 2WW, Germany’s foreign policy or Scandinavian
countries when it comes to development policies and financial development assistance,
support less developed countries in the international system.
C. Theory of the Military Industrial Complex
This a kind of elite theory that return to rationalism (soft/bounded rationality: see book
“rational choice is always for someone and for some social purpose”). We have here the
political powerful alliance of the Ministry of defence (Pentagon), the army military staff) and
the defence industry → 3 alliance that is very strong and produce a kind of new group
thinking, they are in need of legitimation to continue the military practices by referring to an
important president → Dwight Eisenhower (speech)
Photo of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy: meet to discuss
power transition => YOUTUBE VIDEO “Eisenhower's farewell address
(sometimes referred as: "Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation")
was the final public speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower as the 34th
President of the United States, delivered in a television broadcast on
January 17, 1961.
Some quotes to highlight the importance of his speech:
It is a century that has witnessed “Four major wars among great
powers”. as a result the american “Industry: shifting from plowshares
to swords”. This has created a “Permanent armaments of vast
proportions”. As a result there is a “Conjunction defense establishment
and arms industry”; this created the unwanted influence of the military
industrial complex “MIC: potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power” and has “Endanger our liberties and democratic processes” in the US.
This is a warning for the powerful alliance between the army, defence industry and the
mistritry of defense and the industry bc they have to produce the arms and make profit from
it → producing a kind of new groupthink with interest in arms race (in the context of the CW
and post 2WW, with the Soviet Union). Clear example that the democrats are not always
representative of the soft power, and peaceful presidency and the republicans being the hard
power.
, D. Combination of: Comparative politics approach & International Political Economy
(IPE) and foreign policy
=> In both cases we have a strong comparative element: Comparing foreign policy (J/S/M):
Inductive method to reach a typology of foreign policy and for foreign policy analysis (pre-
theory influenced by behaviorism). There are different elements of these pre-theory on the
base we can compare the foreign policy of different states.
Sets of variables Urgency and immediacy Instrument
(big states? small states? weak?
strong?...)
Characteristics of decision-maker: Crisis versus Non-crisis: Persuasive diplomacy: soft power,
the psychological aspects important aspect when it convince other states to make them
comes to the rationality of act differently, normative power of a
Regime type: democracy or decision making and the country, ideas...
authoritarian regime cognitive constraints of the
policy makers Coercive diplomacy: sanctions
National identity: security culture
(ex: scandinavian countries). Military intervention: hard power.
Geographic location: very important,
next to oceans, trade, economy...
Economic development: hypothesis
is that + developed + it has open
borders and seas (free trade) foreign
policy
● Object of comparison:
Some issues are for some states more important than others
Issue Geographic focus Objective
Trade Global (players: China, US…) Security (territorial, national)
Defence Regional (foreign policy orientation) Welfare (free trade)
Arms control Sub-regional Status (legitimation and ideational
Conflict resolution impact)
Peacekeeping
Environment
Migration
Energy
=> The objective of these pre-theory is to create a typology of foreign policy and quantify
different states in different foreign policies to address causal relations and correlation
between different variables.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper leabhathal. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €15,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 70055 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen