Suchergebnisse

American and international public looks up to American presidents as the chief creators of American foreign policy. A review of the contemporary history of US foreign policy is mostly a review of foreign policy platforms and initiatives of American presidents. Although fundamental prerequisites exist - constitutional powers, executive office of the President as support in the creation and implementation of certain decisions, the expectations of the Congress and the public that President should lead the nation in the foreign policy arena - not all American presidents have taken an equal interest in foreign policy decision-making and the creation of American foreign policy; this has depended on their personal interests and experiences. Despite significant constitutional restrictions of the president's autonomous action in foreign policy and occasionally successful attempts of the legislature to assume control over foreign policy, as well as frequent challenges to presidential powers and numerous actions by the public, we can conclude that American presidents are nevertheless dominant figures in the field of American foreign policy. (SOI : PM: S. 192)

In the course of its history, Europe has structured itself by means of two models. The first was based on the territorial expansion of regional forces that used violence to break down the resistance of their weaker neighbors and establish the balance of power. In this way, at least temporarily, the way was paved for more radical changes in their polities. This model was in use until the end of World War II. The second model has been built around European integration. The aim of this process has not been the expansion of regional powers and the territorial conquest of their neighbors; it is based on the initiative of the weak to join the organizations that can satisfy their interests and goals. The process of integration excludes coercive methods. However, there is certain asymmetry in the relationship between the center and the periphery (the strong and the weak). The countries that belong to the center define the membership standards for the 'periphery' and evaluate their implementation. The 'central' countries are in a better position than the peripheral ones since the process of integration bolsters their collective identity, while the weaker states - by accepting the standards of stronger countries - have to alter their original identity. (SOI : PM: S. 97)