Search results

Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. ; "Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations." ; Mode of access: Internet.

In many respects, de facto states play a highly specific role as actors within the international system of sovereign states. The lack of international recognition has tangible political and economic impacts on the functioning of such states, and so the attempt to persuade domestic actors and the international community of the legitimacy of their claims to independence ranks among the most important components of these states' policy—not only in foreign policy, but also in domestic policy. The aim of this text is to contribute to our understanding of how internal legitimization strategies for Abkhazian statehood are constructed and how they impact upon the foreign policy of this de facto state. Field research was carried out via interviews with important official state representatives of Abkhazia and important non-state actors—including journalists and representatives of nonprofit organizations, universities, the Church and other key institutions, which influence public opinion within and beyond this de facto state.

AbstractWhile public opinion about foreign policy has been studied extensively in the United States, there is less systematic research of foreign policy opinions in other countries. Given that public opinion about international affairs affects who gets elected in democracies and then constrains the foreign policies available to leaders once elected, both comparative politics and international relations scholarship benefit from more systematic investigation of foreign policy attitudes outside the United States. Using new data, this article presents a common set of core constructs structuring both American and European attitudes about foreign policy. Surveys conducted in four countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany) provide an expanded set of foreign policy‐related survey items that are analysed using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Measurement equivalence is specifically tested and a common four‐factor structure that fits the data in all four countries is found. Consequently, valid, direct comparisons of the foreign policy preferences of four world powers are made. In the process, the four‐factor model confirms and expands previous work on the structure of foreign policy attitudes. The article also demonstrates the capability of ESEM in testing the dimensionality and cross‐national equivalence of social science concepts.

While public opinion about foreign policy has been studied extensively in the United States, there is less systematic research of foreign policy opinions in other countries. Given that public opinion about international affairs affects who gets elected in democracies and then constrains the foreign policies available to leaders once elected, both comparative politics and international relations scholarship benefit from more systematic investigation of foreign policy attitudes outside the US. Using new data, we find a common set of core constructs structuring both American and European attitudes about foreign policy. Surveys conducted in four countries (the US, the UK, France, and Germany) provide an expanded set of foreign policy-related survey items that are analyzed using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). We specifically test for measurement equivalence and find a common four-factor structure that fits the data in all four countries. Consequently, we make valid, direct comparisons of the foreign policy preferences of four world powers. In the process, our four-factor model confirms and expands previous work on the structure of foreign policy attitudes. We also demonstrate the capability of ESEM in testing the dimensionality and cross-national equivalence of social science concepts.

While public opinion about foreign policy has been studied extensively in the United States, there is less systematic research of foreign policy opinions in other countries. Given that public opinion about international affairs affects who gets elected in democracies and then constrains the foreign policies available to leaders once elected, both comparative politics and international relations scholarship benefit from more systematic investigation of foreign policy attitudes outside the United States. Using new data, this article presents a common set of core constructs structuring both American and European attitudes about foreign policy. Surveys conducted in four countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany) provide an expanded set of foreign policy-related survey items that are analysed using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Measurement equivalence is specifically tested and a common four-factor structure that fits the data in all four countries is found. Consequently, valid, direct comparisons of the foreign policy preferences of four world powers are made. In the process, the four-factor model confirms and expands previous work on the structure of foreign policy attitudes. The article also demonstrates the capability of ESEM in testing the dimensionality and cross-national equivalence of social science concepts.

While public opinion about foreign policy has been studied extensively in the United States, there is less systematic research of foreign policy opinions in other countries. Given that public opinion about international affairs affects who gets elected in democracies and then constrains the foreign policies available to leaders once elected, both comparative politics and international relations scholarship benefit from more systematic investigation of foreign policy attitudes outside the United States. Using new data, this article presents a common set of core constructs structuring both American and European attitudes about foreign policy. Surveys conducted in four countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany) provide an expanded set of foreign policy‐related survey items that are analysed using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Measurement equivalence is specifically tested and a common four‐factor structure that fits the data in all four countries is found. Consequently, valid, direct comparisons of the foreign policy preferences of four world powers are made. In the process, the four‐factor model confirms and expands previous work on the structure of foreign policy attitudes. The article also demonstrates the capability of ESEM in testing the dimensionality and cross‐national equivalence of social science concepts.

Since 2003, droughts have been problematized within a climate change frame in Germany. Scholars describe this framing process as climatization. In our research, we conduct a qualitative content analysis of sector journal articles to investigate the climatization of drought within the three most affected policy fields in Germany: agriculture, water management, and forestry. The research objectives are to investigate how climatization processes evolve and take place within a specific policy field, and what different modes of climatization can be identified. The results are based on a framing analysis of 267 articles from journals published by political associations of farmers, water managers, and foresters at both the national and a state level, covering drought problematization relating to two major drought events in 2003 and 2011–2012. The article shows that four modes of climatization can be distinguished: scientification, securitization, technocratization, and transformation. With this empirically based heuristic, we contribute to advancing the concept of climatization by operationalizing it into a more profound, empirically grounded analytical concept that can be applied to critically investigate policymaking processes related to reducing disaster risks and achieving climate adaptation.

ABSTRACTIndigenous nations and communities in the United States have rights as sovereign governments to exercise control and ownership over all data and information generated by or from the tribes, tribal members, or tribal resources. Indigenous nations exercise these rights through data ownership policies established in response to unethical research practices in research involving Indigenous communities. Most universities in the U.S. have "openness in research" policies to ensure academic freedom to publish freely, exercised by retaining university control of data. Here, we describe our study of cultural ecosystem services in the St. Louis River estuary region (Nagaajiwanaang in the language Ojibwemowin) in Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, U.S., an area that includes portions of the 1854 and 1842 Ceded Territories and reservation lands of a local band of Ojibwe (hereafter referred to as "the Band"). In this university‐led, Band‐supported study, both the university and the Band sought ownership of data collected based on their respective policies, resulting in a research delay of nearly a year. We found that open research policies that do not consider Indigenous sovereignty can hamper collaboration between university researchers and tribal nations, even when there is broad agreement on research goals and objectives. University open research policies that do not explicitly address Indigenous sovereignty fall short of the open research principles they intend to support and should be revised. Formal adoption of principles for ethical research with sovereign tribal governments by universities is needed to improve coordination and trust among university and tribal researchers and members.