Suchergebnisse

The influence of domestic politics on international relations is a very popular theme in US foreign policy analysis. Numerous studies have demonstrated that presidents sometimes tried to improve their public ratings by adopting populist militant foreign policies. The question is whether such behavior is characteristic of democracies in general, or limited to the United States. While there is no reason to assume that in other democracies, or even non-democratic regimes, aggressive actions against a foreign threat willlikewise receive popular support, other states that lack superpower capabilities do not have as much freedom of action as the United States. Smaller states must be more cautious in their behavior, since they are more susceptible to foreign pressure than the United States. This argument is illustrated by analyzing patterns of Israeli limited military actions against its neighbors between 1950 and 1982, which reveals that despite popular demands within the Israeli parliament to pursue more militant policies, the government tended to restrain its actions when faced with foreign pressure from the United States, Great Britain, and the United Nations Security Council.

Abstract. This article tests a number of hypotheses about foreign policy decision making within parliamentary democracies. First it explores the origins of debates among decision‐makers. Are deliberations provoked by alternative organizational perspectives or by conflicting ideological orientations? Second, it asks how debates are resolved. On the one hand, it has been suggested that, because each minister has an equal vote, a compromise between decision‐makers must be reached. On the other hand, it has been argued that the Prime Minister exerts considerable control and power in foreign policy matters in relation to other decision‐makers. These questions were studied with the aid of data collected from a sample of 97 decision episodes between 1949 and 1982, where the Israeli government discussed how to respond to low‐intensity aggression against Israeli citizens and soldiers. The results of this research demonstrate that internal debates are poorly associated with organizational or political diversity. Instead group size seems to be more important, although the relationship is not linear. In any case, the discussions usually concluded in a consensus around the Prime Minister's policy of choice, thus indicating that he or she is the paramount decision‐maker.

This article tests a number of hypotheses about foreign policy decision making within parliamentary democracies. First it explores the origins of debates among decision-makers. Are deliberations provoked by alternative organizational perspectives or by conflicting ideological orientations? Second, it asks how debates are resolved. On the one hand, it has been suggested that, because each minister has an equal vote, a compromise between decision-makers must be reached. On the other hand, it has been argued that the Prime Minister exerts considerable control and power in foreign policy matters in relation to other decision-makers. These questions were studied with the aid of data collected from a sample of 97 decision episodes between 1949 and 1982, where the Israeli government discussed how to respond to low-intensity agression against Israeli citizens and soldiers. The results of this research demonstrate that internal debates are poorly associated with organizational or political diversity. Instead group size seems to be more important, although the relationship is not linear. In any case, the discussions usually concluded in a consensus around the Prime Minister's policy of choice, thus indicating that he or she is the paramount decision-maker. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)