Suchergebnisse

Research on international relations of the Middle East (IRME) has suffered from a schism between International Relations (IR) theory and regional particularities. To address this, scholars have offered corrective accounts by adding domestic factors to IR structural approaches. Studies on IRME thus reflect the turn to decision-making and domestic politics that has recently occurred. This article develops a critical analysis of the domestic politics orientation in IRME. We argue that this scholarship ignores work in foreign policy analysis (FPA) with its psychological-oriented and agent-based dimensions and that this constitutes a missed opportunity for the study of the region. The article offers suggestions for incorporating FPA research into IRME and argues that an FPA perspective offers an alternative and complementary approach to the eclectic frameworks predominant in the scholarship on IRME.

The aim of this article is to demonstrate how a relational concept of power can benefit Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). It begins by drawing attention to the fact that Japan's foreign policy has been portrayed rather enigmatically in terms of power, and by arguing that such an enigma stems from the fact that FPA has borrowed the concept of power of much International Relations (IR) theory, i.e. one that puts power on a par with capability. With a point of departure in Steven Lukes' relational concept of power, the article then conceptualizes an alternative perspective. By applying the ensuing 'relational power analysis' to two 'significant' issues in Japan's China policy, namely the negotiations for bilateral investment protection and interaction over the disputed Pinnacle ( Senkaku or Diaoyu) Islands, the article demonstrates that Japan's foreign policy can be portrayed more intelligibly in terms of power, and thereby also how power could be treated in FPA in the first place.