Germany and England: Background of Conflict, 1848-1894. Raymond James SontagGermany and the Great Powers, 1866-1914. A Study in Public Opinion and Foreign Policy. E. Malcolm Carroll

1939 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-407
Author(s):  
Oron James Hale
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Great Powers

The Italian War of 1859 and the Reorientation of Russian Foreign Policy

1977 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-144
Author(s):  
G. J. Thurston
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Russian Foreign Policy ◽  
Limited War ◽  
Napoleon Iii ◽  
The Face

On the face of it, the war between Austria and the allied forces of Piedmont and France in the summer of 1859, and the ensuing struggles that culminated in the unification of most of Italy under King Victor Emanuel, would seem to have little to do with the evolution of Russian foreign policy. Russia took care not to be drawn into the fighting and greeted the unification process with loud disapprobation. Yet that war could not have been fought as a limited war without Russian collusion. Napoleon III required – besides the tacit approval of England (where public opinion supported ‘Italy for the Italians’) – the aid of another nation in order to be what Bismarck later called ’à trois’ in a Europe of five great powers. For Russia to provide that aid obliged her to abandon the responsibilities shouldered by Alexander I and Nicholas I, ‘the gendarme of Europe’, champion of Europe's conservative instincts and guarantor of its treaties.

Evolution of Germany’s Stance Regarding the Three Seas Initiative

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Martin Dahl
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Game ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
Polish Foreign

When the political camp centred on the Law and Justice party (PiS) came to power in 2015, it led to a change in priorities in Polish foreign policy. The Three Seas Initiative (TSI), understood as closer cooperation between eastern states of the European Union in the area between the Baltic, Adriatic, and Black seas, has become a new instrument of foreign policy. The initiative demonstrates the growing importance of Central and Eastern Europe in the global game of great powers. The region has become a subject of rivalry, not only between the United States and Russia but also China. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to try to describe the importance of the region to Germany and how Germany’s stance on the TSI has evolved. The article consists of three parts, an introduction to the issues, the genesis of the TSI, and the definition of goals set by the states participating in this initiative, as well as analysis of the German stance towards the initiative since its development in 2015. The theories of geopolitics and neorealism are used as the theoretical basis for the analysis.

scholarly journals Another Story: What Public Opinion Data Tell Us about Refugee and Humanitarian Policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Blitz
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Social Survey ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Media Campaigns ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Muslim Communities

The global reaction to US President Donald Trump's executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” of January 27, 2017,1 revealed great public sympathy for the fate of refugees and the principle of refugee protection. In the case of Europe, such sympathy has, however, been dismissed by politicians who have read concerns regarding security and integration as reason for introducing restrictive policies on asylum and humanitarian assistance. These policies are at odds with public sentiment. Drawing upon public opinion surveys conducted by Amnesty International, the European Social Survey (ESS), and Pew Global Attitudes Survey across the European Union and neighboring states, this article records a marked divide between public attitudes towards the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers and official policies regarding asylum and humanitarian assistance, and seeks to understand why this is the case. The article suggests that post-9/11 there has been a reconfiguration of refugee policy and a reconnecting of humanitarian and security interests which has enabled a discourse antithetical to the universal right to asylum. It offers five possible explanations for this trend: i) fears over cultural antagonism in host countries; ii) the conflation of refugees and immigrants, both those deemed economically advantageous as well as those labelled as “illegal”; iii) dominance of human capital thinking; iv) foreign policy justification; and v) the normalization of border controls. The main conclusion is that in a post-post-Cold War era characterized in part by the reconnecting of security and humanitarian policy, European governments have developed restrictive policies despite public sympathy. Support for the admission of refugees is not, however, unqualified, and most states and European populations prefer skilled populations that can be easily assimilated. In order to achieve greater protection and more open policies, this article recommends human rights actors work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its partners to challenge the above discourse through media campaigns and grassroots messaging. Further recommendations include: • Challenging efforts to normalize and drawing attention to the extreme and unprecedented activities of illegal and inhumane practices, e.g., detention, offshore processing, and the separation of families through the courts as part of a coordinated information campaign to present a counter moral argument. • Identifying how restrictive asylum policies fail to advance foreign policy interests and are contrary to international law. • Evidencing persecution by sharing information with the press and government agencies on the nature of claims by those currently considered ineligible for refugee protection as part of a wider campaign of information and inclusion. • Engaging with minority, and in particular Muslim, communities to redress public concerns regarding the possibility of cultural integration in the host country. • Clarifying the rights of refugees and migrants in line with the UNHCR and International Organization for Migration (IOM) guidelines and European and national law in order to hold governments to account and to ensure that all — irrespective of their skills, status, nationality or religion — are given the opportunity to seek asylum. • Identifying and promoting leadership among states and regional bodies to advance the rights of refugees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document