Theories of International Relations

1
Theories of International Relations

• Week 11
• Security I Theorizing Foreign Policy

2
Introduction

• Welcome. Last term we discussed the main features
  of the contemporary debate in IR theory.
• We considered Realism and Liberalism, and then
  Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberal Institutionalism.
• The main issue that emerged from the mainstream
  debate was the anarchic international system and
  the dynamics of cooperation (and conflict) in
  this context.
• Subsequently, we examined Constructivism,
  Marxism, Feminism and approaches to postmodernity.

3
Introduction (cont)

• This term our attention moves to what may be
  called middle-range issues, where theory is
  developed and applied
• Security (war and conflict, post-Cold War period,
  critical perspectives on security, and the
  Global War on Terror) and
• Global governance (institutions, international
  law and human rights, global civil society, and
  environment)
• Today we are going to discuss theories of foreign
  policy.

4
Outline

• IR and FPA
• What Are Theories of Foreign Policy?
• Traditional Approach
• Foreign Policy Decision-Making
• Models of FPA
• Weldes on Star Trek FP
• Main Points and Next Time

5
How are IR and Foreign Policy Analysis connected?

• 3 possible connections
• FPA and IR have the same objective explaining
  world politics
• IR has analytical priority FPA simply deals with
  those things that IR cannot explain
• In understanding world politics, the real action
  lies with FPA
• The main paradigms of IR theory have tended to
  see foreign policy as determined by the nature of
  the international system.
• In the 1950s and 1960s, this view led to efforts
  to create theories of foreign policy based on the
  structure of the international system.
• In a bipolar world (eg. US-USSR) this structural
  feature was said to impose 'rules' of behaviour
  on all states regardless of their ideological and
  political complexion.

6
IR and FPA (cont.)

• These 'rules' would be different from those that
  applied in multipolar systems (eg. 19th Century).
  As should be clear, the assumptions here were
  overwhelmingly Realist.
• While systemic IR theory does allow for powerful
  claims, the difficulty is, in leaving people,
  their ideas and institutions out of the
  explanation, it seems only able to deal with long
  term and very general trends in foreign policy.
• Instead a possible middle way while IR looks at
  the bigger picture - forces, structures,
  processes and contexts constraining and/or
  enabling state action - FPA looks within the
  units of the international system.

7
What are theories of foreign policy?

• Foreign policy analysis tends to be about how
  foreign policy is made the process.
• Theories of foreign policy look at concrete
  examples of foreign policy as instances of
  broader processes.
• All theories of foreign policy typically
  distinguish a domestic level of policy from the
  foreign (or external) level they are most
  interested in understanding.
• Theories of foreign policy are typically
  state-centric. They are concerned with the
  policies made by states about other states.
• Theories of foreign policy are an applied form of
  theory, not grand theory like the approaches we
  examined last term.

8
Traditional approach and methodology

• Before we get to these theories of foreign policy
  proper, let's consider the alternative. We can
  call this the traditional approach.
• The traditional approach is concerned with
  understanding particular examples of foreign
  policy making. For example, why did State A have
  policy X toward State B, at Time 1?
• Explanations are sought of the policy event, but
  generalizations are not made to other policy
  events (at Time 2, Time 3 etc).
• While the traditional approach is not explicitly
  theoretical, it does contain implicit or hidden
  theoretical assumptions about what are the things
  that matter in explaining foreign policy.
• As the study of international relations and IR
  theory became more systematic in the 1960s, these
  informal approaches, which owe more to diplomatic
  history for example than social science, fell out
  of favour in IR.

9
Foreign policy decision-making

• IR scholars wanted something they could use to
  explain cases. Hence focus on process of foreign
  policy decision-making.
• Instead of focusing on the international system,
  these theorists of foreign policy decision-making
  would focus on states and how they worked.
• In changing to this state-centric focus, these
  writers were not going back to the traditional
  approach, because in this view all states would
  be assumed to be essentially the same, a class of
  phenomena rather than unique things (for example,
  states rather than the specifically German
  state).
• This new theory would focus on trying to
  establish generalizations about how states
  processed decisions. The idea was to identify
  their internal mechanisms. Theory would
  disaggregate the monolithic state, the Billiard
  ball of the Realist school.

10
Models of FPA

• 1. Regime type and foreign policy
• E.g. if democracy, state will not go to war with
  another democracy
• 2. Beliefs of policy-makers
• Ideology e.g. neo-conservatism and US invasion
  of Iraq Al Qaedas declaration of holy war
• Identity e.g. UK self-understanding as an
  Atlantic or European power
• Analogies or lessons of history e.g. Vietnam for
  the US, or Somalia for the Clinton
  administrations decision not to intervene in
  Rwanda
• Causal theories e.g. the impact on the wider
  Middle East of successful democratization of Iraq

11
Models of FPA (cont.)

• 3. Political dynamics of state bureaucracies
• Graham Allison's study of foreign policy
  decision-making is the most influential example
  of this development in IR theory.
• Allison thought most existing explanations of
  state action were based on a rational-actor model
  in which policy choices are seen as the purposive
  or intentional acts of unified governments, based
  on a logical means of achieving given objectives.
  
• This rational-actor model of foreign policy
  decision-making assumes, thought Allison, that
  people discern clearly their objectives, the
  options available, and the likely consequences of
  each alternative choice before making their
  decision.

12
Models of FPA (cont.)

• Allison saw the Rational-Actor model as
  inadequate and supplemented it with two further
  models. The organizational-process model was his
  first addition.
• The organizational-process model sees government
  behaviour less as deliberate choice and more as
  outputs of several large organizations, only
  partly coordinated by leaders.
• In the organizational-process model the concern
  is with what methods states develop to cope with
  the influx of problems (so-called
  standard-operating procedures).
• Often, thought Allison, this means it is the
  problems of immediate urgency that get dealt with
  and not the longer-range ones, as a rational
  actor would.

13
Models of FPA (cont.)

• Allison's second addition was called the
  bureaucratic politics model. This builds on
  organizational process.
• Instead of assuming leadership, it adds intense
  competition within the bureaucracy. Here foreign
  policy formulation represents the result of
  bargaining among the components of a bureaucracy.
• The important thing about Allison's work is that
  as a result of adding organizational-process and
  bureaucratic politics, foreign policy
  decision-making was thought to depend not on the
  rational justification for policy or on
  procedures, but on the relative power and skill
  of those bargaining around creation of policy.

14
Models of FPA (cont.)

• 4. Domestic politics
• Role of public opinion in enabling or
  constraining policy-makers and the executive
• Role of legislatures (parliament, congress) in
  defining, for example, what constitutes the
  national interest, and pushing governments to
  adopt certain foreign policies
• Role of interest groups e.g. trade unions and
  trade policies, lobbies (Walt and Mearsheimer on
  the Israeli lobby and US FP in the Middle East)

15
Weldes on Star Trek FP

• With the emergence of Neo-Realism attention was
  diverted away from the state level and back to
  the structure of anarchy.
• In this view, states simply recognise the
  structure of the situation. Internal dynamics and
  domestic pressures play no significant part in
  foreign policy.
• Constructivists have led the renewed interest in
  FP. E.g. Weldes is interested in the context in
  which foreign policy is made, rather than the
  decision-making process.
• Weldes argues that popular culture helps
  reproduce official foreign policy thinking.
• She suggests that policy relies on cultural
  support.
• The logic underlying policy becomes
  commonsensical through popular culture.

16
Star Trek (cont)

• Weldes argues Star Trek offers a benevolent view
  of the Federation and Starfleet, reproducing the
  prevailing American attitude that the US is a
  benign force in world politics.
• Major elements of this are liberal values and
  multiculturalism, both of which pervade many
  episodes.
• Using examples from the show, Weldes argues that
  Star Trek establishes a hierarchy between
  species, based on level of development, that
  justifies intervention in their affairs, in
  almost every episode.

17
Star Trek (cont)

• In the episode entitled The Apple the
  Enterprise discovers a utopian society in which a
  supercomputer, Vaal, provides for all the needs
  of the local humanoid community.
• Kirk has the Enterpise destroy Vaal, forcing the
  local population to fend for themselves.
• When Spock suggests this violates the Prime
  Directive, Kirk responds that They should have
  freedom of choice. We owe it to them to
  interfere. (Weldes, 1999 130).
• In other words, because liberal values are the
  right ones, deviation from them makes violating
  the Prime Directive (sovereignty) the right thing
  to do.

18
Main Points Next Time

• Theories of foreign policy developed to explain
  what big paradigms ignored.
• Neo-Realism effectively shut down theories of
  foreign policy by reducing states to elements
  whose acts are determined by anarchy.
• The rise of Constructivism allowed for renewed
  interest in FP.
• However, adopting a middle way allows you to
  recognize the importance of the international
  context, structures and processes, and the
  pressures and inducements they exert on states
• All this while specifying the relevant FPA
  variables (beliefs, bureaucratic interaction,
  domestic politics) and the ways in which they
  affect how foreign policy decisions are made.
• Keep in mind though that to understand policy
  outcomes you also need to consider how the
  decisions are implemented and the responses of
  other states/actors.