Suchergebnisse

The author makes a distinction between three approaches to foreign policy research: (1) the traditional approach emphasizing diplomatic history, (2) the 'scientific' approach à la Rosenau, and (3) the radical approach (represented, e.g. by William A. Williams and Gabriel Kolko). These approaches are evaluated by criteria which include diachronic vs. synchronic orientation, nomothetic vs. ideographic orientation, and the type of strategic actors postulated as well as the model of explanation applied (whether the foreign policy orientations are explained by relational or domestic factors). This is followed by a discussion of some of the critical problems in the analysis of foreign policy. These problems are the distinction between external behavior and foreign policy, the role of subjective vs. objective factors in the determination of foreign policy, and the need to analyze the outcomes of foreign policies, not just the decision-making processes and tools applied in the execution of the policy.

US Foreign Policy in World History is a survey of US foreign relations and its perceived crusade to spread liberty and democracy in the two hundred years since the American Revolution. David Ryan undertakes a systematic and material analysis of US foreign policy, whilst also explaining the policymakers' grand ideas, ideologies and constructs that have shaped US diplomacy.US Foreign Policy explores these arguments by taking a thematic approach structured around central episodes and ideas in the history of US foreign relations and policy making, including:* The Monroe Doctrine, its philisophical

Shows how governments are biased in favor of violent, adventurous foreign policy projects when the voters' evaluation of foreign policy outcomes could have an effect on election results.

An explanation of the peculiarities of US foreign policy must be based upon its systematic description & comparison. US domestic & internat'l pol have tended toward the pragmatic &, until very recently, away from the ideological. Even legalism & violence have been pragmatically motivated. This peculiarity cannot be explained by SE factors like industr' .ization & Ur'ization. SM & the US educ'al system can provide road signs toward a more adequate explanation, to which 3 primarily pol'al factors can contribute: the break with time executed by the makers of the Amer Revolution; the adversary method of pleading of the retained Common Law; & the constitutional environment created by the Founding Fathers. Only in the last decade has US foreign policy moved toward an incongruous ideologism. HA.

Regime change and foreign policy adjustments have been closely intertwined in Myanmar's recent experience. Since 2011, domestic political transition has been paralleled by changes in the country's foreign policy posture, with Naypyitaw reconsidering its dependence on Beijing while seeking rapprochement with Washington. Taking Myanmar as a case study, this essay aims to address the theoretical issue of how regime change influences the foreign policy of a country. The first two sections draw on Foreign Policy Analysis and Comparative Politics to develop an analytical framework for the study of foreign policy choices during regime change. The focus is on how transitional politics interacts with external influence, against the background of loosened distinctions between the domestic and international levels. The last two sections test the analytical framework against the ups and downs of Myanmar's economic cooperation with China. Two decisions of the Myanmar government are analysed: the 2011 decision to suspend cooperation on the Myitsone dam, and the 2012 decision to continue cooperation on the Letpadaung mine. While apparently contradictory, Naypyitaw's behaviour on these two occasions helps to unravel the dilemmas that foreign policy decision-makers face at times of political transition.