Search results

Systemic realist arguments of foreign policy decision-making suggest that partisan disagreement stops at the water's edge. A domestic-politics model of foreign policy decision-making posits that politics does not stop at the water's edge. Extant research on foreign policy voting in the U.S. Congress is consistent with the systemic realist argument. According to this research, partisan voting is less likely to occur on national security, or high-politics issues, than on low-politics issues. I argue that this research suffers from two flaws. First, it does not measure high-politics in accordance with systemic realist thinking. Second, the goal in addressing the water's-edge question is not to learn if a specific variable, such as high-politics, is significant, but to compare competing models. To this end, it is necessary to engage in a "three-cornered fight" and conduct a nonnested model discrimination test. After creating a new measure of high-politics, I compare a systemic realist model against a domestic-politics model of foreign policy voting in the House of Representatives from 1953—2000. The model discrimination test indicates that the domestic-politics model outperforms the systemic realist model. Institutional dynamics and public opinion are more important for understanding foreign policy voting than are more traditional realist variables.

What explains presidential decision making on foreign policy? This question is addressed by assessing the relative influence of the international and domestic environments on presidential foreign policy choice. Unlike previous studies, which have focused on the relatively small number of presidential decisions to use force, the authors look at the broad range of conflictual and cooperative policies that presidents have pursued. Using data from the Conflict and Peace Data Bank, they estimate a model of presidential foreign policy choice over the years 1948 through 1978. The results indicate that presidents respond mostly to the rhythms of international events and not domestic politics when making foreign policy. In particular, little evidence is found to support the findings or earlier research that public approval influences presidential decision making on foreign policy.

Presenting the first comprehensive account of foreign policy objectives as a growing part of European constitutional law, Joris Larik confronts the trend of enshrining international ambitions in the highest laws of states and the European Union. Closely examining the provisions of foreign policy objectives, Larik differentiates their legal force and functions, situating them into the overall legal order of the state, the EU, and the composite 'European constitutional space'. He argues that the codification of foreign policy objectives suggests a progression in the evolution of the role of the constitution: from limiting public authority to guiding it towards certain goals, both at home and in the wider world

In response to the intensifying US-China rivalry, Singapore ostensibly "hedges", a strategy that avoids choosing between Washington and Beijing and maximizes gains from cooperating with both powers while avoiding confrontation. Hedging also extenuates Singapore's central location in Asia and its role as an established commercial and financial hub. As such, it appears to reflect the imperative of any small state: survival. However, in contrast to the argument that domestic politics does not matter in Singapore's foreign policy, this article demonstrates how the domestic imperative of legitimizing the political dominance of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) shapes the government's hedging strategy.(Contemp Southeast Asia / GIGA)