Search results

Abstract
Strategic partnership between states is a reciprocal exchange built on mutual commitment. The significance of the United States to Lithuania is unquestionable. However, why should the U.S. care about Lithuania? The emphasis on the U.S. interests and policies allows ignoring the question about Lithuania's engagement and input into the partnership. Therefore, this article asks how does Lithuania contribute to the strategic partnership with the U.S.? To be precise, does Lithuania support and pledge its allegiance to the U.S. when this support goes beyond the limits of direct responsibilities of strategic partner, or even enters into a conflict with other important responsibilities or interests of the state?

This article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? There had been attempts to answer this question already. In general four approaches based on the role of historical analogies they see can be outlined: instrumental, cognitive, cognitive-instrumental and constitutive. However a review of conventional approaches revealed their limits and questions that they ignore. None of the conventional approaches has a theoretical explanation of how policymakers use historical analogies in order to show differences between past and present events that they compare. None of the conventional approaches can explain the role of historical analogies in constituting rule-based context that governs actions of actors. Instrumental and cognitive approaches are not interested in consequences of historical analogy use. Instrumental, cognitive and cognitive-instrumental approaches do not explain constitutive role of the use of historical analogy.This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. It enables answering all of the above mentioned questions that conventional approaches can not. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and includes dialogical analysis method. Based on speech act theory use of language and in this case – use of historical analogy is a form of action. Historical analogy is not a simple comparison of past and present events but it is a comparison of what is perceived as social rules of the past and the present. Based on rule-oriented constructivism theoretical question how historical analogies construct social rules is answered. With dialogical analysis method empirical question how historical analogies construct social rules is answered.It is argued that historical analogies play two roles in foreign policy decision-making stage. First role is cognitive – policymakers use historical analogies in order to understand foreign policy issues with the help of intersubjective rules that are linked with particular past or present events. Second role is constitutive – foreign policy context, identities and interests of actors are constituted by giving them meanings that are related with particular rules of the past or present events.The role of historical analogies in foreign policy implementation stage is to construct rule-based context in which foreign policy takes place. This is not an individual action as the constitutive role of historical analogies may imply. Construction of rule-based context is a collective process that involves interaction between actors who use historical analogies and actors that are described by those historical analogies. Thus in order to explain foreign policy one needs to identify rules that actors follow and constitute. Thus the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies, can be answered by identifying what type of rules and context are emerging out of interaction between policymakers who use historical analogies. ; Straipsnyje keliamas klausimas, kaip galima paaiškinti valstybės užsienio politiką analizuojant užsienio politikos veikėjų pasisakymuose naudojamas istorines analogijas ir su jomis susijusį užsienio politikos procesą. Teigiama, kad konvencinių požiūrių į istorinių analogijų vaidmenį užsienio politikos procese atstovai pernelyg siaurai apsibrėžia istorinės analogijos sampratą. Taip pat, kad besivadovaujantieji konvenciniais požiūriais, pirmenybę teikdami pozityvistų prielaidoms, jog istorija yra faktų rinkinys ir kalba nesvarbi arba aprašo tikrovę, apriboja galimybes tirti istorines analogijas. Straipsnyje formuluojamas naujas istorinių analogijų analizės modelis, apimantis taisyklių konstruktyvizmo ir kalbėjimo akto teorijos prielaidas bei dialoginės analizės metodą.

Straipsnyje keliamas klausimas, kaip galima paaiškinti valstybės užsienio politiką analizuojant užsienio politikos veikėjų pasisakymuose naudojamas istorines analogijas ir su jomis susijusį užsienio politikos procesą. Teigiama, kad konvencinių požiūrių į istorinių analogijų vaidmenį užsienio politikos procese atstovai pernelyg siaurai apsibrėžia istorinės analogijos sampratą. Taip pat, kad besivadovaujantieji konvenciniais požiūriais, pirmenybę teikdami pozityvistų prielaidoms, jog istorija yra faktų rinkinys ir kalba nesvarbi arba aprašo tikrovę, apriboja galimybes tirti istorines analogijas. Straipsnyje formuluojamas naujas istorinių analogijų analizės modelis, apimantis taisyklių konstruktyvizmo ir kalbėjimo akto teorijos prielaidas bei dialoginės analizės metodą.

...

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The article asks the question, how foreign policy is explained by analyzing historical analogies that are voiced by policymakers? It is claimed that conventional approaches are too narrow because of two reasons. The first reason is the way conventional approaches perceive the role of historical analogies. The second reason is the dominance of positivist assumptions about history and language analysis in conventional approaches. This article presents an alternative explanation of how and why policymakers use historical analogies and develops new model for analysis of historical analogies. The model is based on the assumptions of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.