The Paradigm Debate in International Relations and Its Implications for Foreign Policy Making: Toward a Redefinition of the "National Interest"

1978 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Martin Rochester
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
National Interest

Political Asylum in Germany: International Norms and Domestic Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-49
Author(s):  
John Bendix ◽  
Niklaus Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Political Asylum ◽  
German Politics

Although political asylum has been at the forefront of contemporaryGerman politics for over two decades, it has not been much discussedin political science. Studying asylum is important, however,because it challenges assertions in both comparative politics andinternational relations that national interest drives decision-making.Political parties use national interest arguments to justify claims thatonly their agenda is best for the country, and governments arguesimilarly when questions about corporatist bargaining practices arise.More theoretically, realists in international relations have positedthat because some values “are preferable to others … it is possible todiscover, cumulate, and objectify a single national interest.” Whileinitially associated with Hans Morgenthau’s equating of nationalinterest to power, particularly in foreign policy, this position hassince been extended to argue that states can be seen as unitary rationalactors who carefully calculate the costs of alternative courses ofaction in their efforts to maximize expected utility.

scholarly journals Politics, policy-making and the presence of images of suffering children

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-608
Author(s):  
Helen Berents
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Visual Politics ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
Political Dimensions

Abstract In 2017 Trump expressed pity for the ‘beautiful babies’ killed in a gas attack on Khan Shaykhun in Syria before launching airstrikes against President Assad's regime. Images of suffering children in world politics are often used as a synecdoche for a broader conflict or disaster. Injured, suffering, or dead; the ways in which images of children circulate in global public discourse must be critically examined to uncover the assumptions that operate in these environments. This article explores reactions to images of children by representatives and leaders of states to trace the interconnected affective and political dimensions of these images. In contrast to attending to the expected empathetic responses prompted by images of children, this article particularly focuses on when such images prompt bellicose foreign policy decision-making. In doing this, the article forwards a way of thinking about images as contentious affective objects in international relations. The ways in which images of children's bodies and suffering are strategically deployed by politicians deserves closer scrutiny to uncover the visual politics of childhood inherent in these moments of international politics and policy-making.

scholarly journals Mass Media and International Relations

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-55
Author(s):  
Elias Papadopoulus
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
International Relations ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Black Box ◽  
The State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
State Actor

In the modern theories in the science of International Relations, the traditional pillar of the school of Realism that considered the state as the only actor in the international scene, actor who took every decision in a monolithic and rational way, taking into consideration only the national interest, has now been rejected. The metaphor of the "black box", indicative of this monolithic way of operation and the rejection of every non-state, but also intra-state and out-of-state actor, even if it was valid once, has definitely been weakened by the events of the post-cold war era, and especially with the advent of globalization. New parameters have been inserted in the process of foreign policy formulation and politicians (and all those responsible for a country‘s foreign policy) have to take them into consideration.

National Security Policy-Making and Cacophony of Voices in the Reagan Administration

1982 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
P.M. Kamath
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
National Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
National Security Policy

In the post-World War II period “national security” has become the most important concept commanding respect among policy-makers and demanding crippling-silence on the part of the national community. It is not necessary here to examine the reasons1, for this commandeering position given to the concept of national security, but in an objective sense, foreign affairs of any nation in the ultimate analysis is conducted to secure national security. In this sense national security essentially denotes a nation's determination to preserve at any cost some of its interests. Foremost are : territorial integrity, political independence and fundamental governmental institutions.2 In the contemporary world it is also a well established fact that the military, diplomatic and economic aspects of a nation's foreign affairs are inseperably interlinked with one another. While foreign policy aims at serving national interest through peaceful diplomatic means, military policy aims at preparedness to protect national interest in case foreign policy fails. The foreign policy of a nation has also to take into consideration economic states involved in a particular policy consideration. This is particularly true for a super power like the United States. Hence, in a sense, it is appropriate to term the combination of foreign and military policies of a nation as national security policy. Who makes national security policy in the United States? What are the special features of national security policy-making process? It is proposed to answer these questions in this paper with special reference to the Reagan Administration.

Decision-making in American and British foreign policy: an open and shut case

1987 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zara Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
International System ◽  
National Interest ◽  
British Foreign Policy ◽  
International Environment ◽  
Common Problems ◽  
Policy Arena ◽  
Governmental Action

In the foreign policy arena, decision-making represents that area of governmental action where domestic and foreign interests intermesh. Regardless of size, resources or power, all states operate in an international environment not of their own making and not under their own control. This international system creates and limits the state's possible actions and reactions. At the same time, all those involved in national foreign policy making act in a domestic context which shapes the national interest and the choice of options. Given this Janus-like position, nations respond to common problems but evolve distinctive and different methods of handling them. A comparison between British and American practice reveals striking parallels and contrasts.

Contesting the “Corrupt Elites,” Creating the “Pure People,” and Renegotiating the Hierarchies of the International Order? Populism and Foreign Policy-Making in Turkey and Hungary

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fulya Hisarlıoğlu ◽  
Lerna K Yanık ◽  
Umut Korkut ◽  
İlke Civelekoğlu
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
International System ◽  
International Order ◽  
Vertical Stratification ◽  
International Level ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Do So

Abstract This article explores the link between populism and hierarchies in international relations by examining the recent foreign policy-making in Turkey and Hungary—two countries run by populist leaders. We argue that when populists bring populism into foreign policy, they do so by contesting the “corrupt elites” of the international order and, simultaneously, attempt to create the “pure people” transnationally. The populists contest the “eliteness” and leadership status of these “elites” and the international order and its institutions, that is, the “establishment,” that these “elites” have come to represent by challenging them both in discourse and in action. The creation of the “pure people” happens by discursively demarcating the “underprivileged” of the international order as a subcategory based on religion and supplementing them with aid, thus mimicking the distributive strategies of populism, this time at the international level. We illustrate that when populist leaders, insert populism into foreign policies of their respective states, through contesting the “corrupt elites” and creating the “pure people,” the built-in vertical stratification mechanisms of populism that stems from the antagonistic binaries inherent to populism provide them with the necessary superiority and inferiority labels allowing them to renegotiate hierarchies in the international system in an attempt to modify the existing ones or to create new ones.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document