Suchergebnisse

There is a growing debate over the extent of consensus or divergence found within interdisciplinary International Studies (IS) programs. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, this debate has taken place in the absence of empirical data. This article advances our understanding of the current state of IS curricula through an analysis of data generated from a survey of 140 interdisciplinary undergraduate IS majors across the United States. The surveyed programs comprise 63 Doctoral/Research institutions, 40 Master's institutions, & 37 Baccalaureate institutions found in 38 states & the District of Columbia. The 140 programs are analyzed in terms of six basic components: introductory course(s), research methods, capstone course(s), area &/or thematic concentrations, study abroad, & foreign language requirements. The findings demonstrate significant areas of both consensus & divergence in IS programs. Tables, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.

This study compares three cases of Brazilian foreign policy: two administrations under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-04 and 2007-08) and the Jair Messias Bolsonaro administration (2019-20). It offers insight both into the flow of Brazilian grand strategy and into a new method to systematically and consistently analyze grand strategies across the global north and south. To do this, it applies an analytical framework dubbed "grand strategy analysis" (GSA). This approach is actor-centered. It identifies grand strategy in the overlap between leaders' rhetoric and policy decisions; thus, it is sensitive to beliefs and perceptions as well as concrete, "hard power" considerations. This study draws upon contemporary news reports, expert interviews, and academic studies to observe grand strategy across the three cases. It finds that each administration has been constrained or shaped by Brazil's existing economic, diplomatic and military status and investments, yet each president's domestic political calculations and ideological commitments unfolded in surprising ways. Lula entered office with strong leftist credentials and rhetoric, yet he brought unusual ambition to elevate Brazil's profile. Bolsonaro, by contrast, emulated contemporary nationalist rhetoric prominent in foreign capitals such as Washington D.C. and Ankara. He also elevated support for the military, yet his strategic approach returned to older patterns for Brazil in which the president's domestic agenda dictates his foreign policy positions.