Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises

Author(s):  
Patrick Haney
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-406
Author(s):  
Michael J. Butler

Abstract By virtue of their defining criteria, international crises would seem unlikely candidates for conflict management and resolution. However, negotiations among crisis protagonists are not uncommon. Such behavior may reflect a desire to ‘exit’ the crisis dynamic. This article takes up the question of when and in what circumstances actors engaged in crisis situations turn to negotiation. Through an empirical analysis of over 1000 cases of foreign policy crises occurring between 1918 and 2015, this research examines a set of potential contextual, processual and structural correlates of crisis negotiation. The results of this analysis indicate that negotiation is less likely to occur in complex, high stakes, and especially violent crises, suggesting that negotiation is an unlikely and perhaps ill-suited response to more intense and severe crises.


1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Oneal ◽  
Anna Lillian Bryan

Subject The State Department. Significance The US State Department’s third-ranking official and most senior career diplomat, Tom Shannon, announced his departure on February 1. While the 60-year old Shannon said he was stepping down for personal reasons, he is only the latest in a stream of senior career diplomats who have left since Donald Trump became president a year ago and appointed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state with a mandate to downsize the department. Impacts Minimising the benefits of diplomacy in favour of military action could exacerbate foreign policy crises and conflicts. White House heel-dragging on filling posts both 'streamlines' State and avoids congressional confirmation scrutiny of political nominees. Concerned that State wields little influence with the White House, Congress will be more assertive in the foreign policy process. Other powers -- particularly US allies -- will seek and have increased direct influence on the White House, cutting out State.


1998 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 346
Author(s):  
Alan C. Lamborn ◽  
Barbara Rearden Farnham ◽  
Patrick J. Haney

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTHEW A. BAUM

Since the 1980s, the mass media have changed the way they cover major political stories, like foreign policy crises. As a consequence, what the public learns about these events has changed. More media outlets cover major events than in the past, including the entertainment-oriented soft news media. When they do cover a political story, soft news outlets focus more on “human drama” than traditional news media – especially the character and motivations of decision-makers, as well as individual stories of heroism or tragedy – and less on the political or strategic context, or substantive nuances, of policy debates. Many Americans who previously ignored most political news now attend to some information about major political events, like wars, via the soft news media. These changes have important implications for democratic politics. Most importantly, a large number of particularly persuadable potential voters are now tuning in to politics via soft news outlets. This gives politicians an incentive to develop strategies for reaching out to them. Such individuals care less about the nuances of policy and more about the personality of leaders and any sensational human drama that a policy, like a war, entails. Soft news consumers care less about geopolitics than about body bags. Politicians who want their votes are therefore likely to emphasize body bags more than geopolitics. In short, the “new” media environment changes both the style and substance of politics in democracies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document