Suchergebnisse

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The question raised in this dissertation is: how is foreign policy explained by analyzing the use of historical analogies by decision-makers in their public statements? The purpose of this study is to develop an analytical framework that will help one to analyze the role of historical analogies in foreign policy. This dissertation challenges conventional approaches to historical analogies. It claims that conventional approaches unduly restrict the role that historical analogies play in foreign policy because of the way they perceive variety of practices in which historical analogies are used, as well as their premises about history and language analysis. This dissertation argues against the arguments of conventional instrumental, cognitive and integrated approaches and claims that the scope of constitutive approach needs to be extended. An alternative conceptualization of historical analogies is built on premises of rule-oriented constructivism, speech act theory and dialogical analysis method. In order to demonstrate the significance of the alternative approach to historical analogies the model is applied to an illustrative analysis of the Cold War historical analogy used by the U.S. and Russia's officials in 2007–2008. The question whether a chance of a (new) Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was possible at that time is answered by showing what kind of rules policy-makers had constituted by using the Cold War historical analogy.

The European Union's international influence and external policies are very difficult to analyze using the traditional International Relations theoretical toolkit. Although the EU's international actorness is still disputed within the academic discourse, the study of its external actions and policies is nonetheless subject to the oldest methodological puzzle of IR discipline – the so-called level-of-analysis problem. This article provides an overview of the contemporary research programme on EU's international role as a selection of different levels of analysis. In the end it is suggested that studying the EU's external impacts and policies requires a modification of the level-of-analysis debate itself by putting a special emphasis on the regional level and regional actorness. There is also a call for integrating different levels of analysis and different (meta)theoretical traditions because contemporary racionalist and constructivist theories provide only partial explanation on every level.

The European Union's international influence and external policies are very difficult to analyze using the traditional International Relations theoretical toolkit. Although the EU's international actorness is still disputed within the academic discourse, the study of its external actions and policies is nonetheless subject to the oldest methodological puzzle of IR discipline – the so-called level-of-analysis problem. This article provides an overview of the contemporary research programme on EU's international role as a selection of different levels of analysis. In the end it is suggested that studying the EU's external impacts and policies requires a modification of the level-of-analysis debate itself by putting a special emphasis on the regional level and regional actorness. There is also a call for integrating different levels of analysis and different (meta)theoretical traditions because contemporary racionalist and constructivist theories provide only partial explanation on every level.

The European Union's international influence and external policies are very difficult to analyze using the traditional International Relations theoretical toolkit. Although the EU's international actorness is still disputed within the academic discourse, the study of its external actions and policies is nonetheless subject to the oldest methodological puzzle of IR discipline – the so-called level-of-analysis problem. This article provides an overview of the contemporary research programme on EU's international role as a selection of different levels of analysis. In the end it is suggested that studying the EU's external impacts and policies requires a modification of the level-of-analysis debate itself by putting a special emphasis on the regional level and regional actorness. There is also a call for integrating different levels of analysis and different (meta)theoretical traditions because contemporary racionalist and constructivist theories provide only partial explanation on every level.

A solid team of authors of this monograph has made a rather serious attempt to study the basics of applied analysis in the foreign policy of the state, information aspects of their methodological support, modern approaches to the study of international politics, targeted structuring of foreign policy analysis and features of operational and analytical work, the nature, categories and specifics of the leading international think tanks and research institutions, features of system modeling and forecasting of political situations in the world – all this in the compartment has traditionally set the tone in determining and promoting the foreign policy of any nation.

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

Constructivism is one of the best developed and one of the most popular theoretical approaches in Foreign Policy analysis. The analytical tools of constructivism with its normative elements as values, norms, national identity are of fundamental importance for the deep and thorough foreign policy analysis. Constructivism helps to merge national and international analysis levels; it provides possibility to analyze and value foreign policy dynamics and to indicate the interdependence among foreign policy and national identity. While applying social constructivism, this article looks into the change of Lithuanian foreign policy and its ties with national identity, through the development and institutionalization of certain values and norms, as well as their inclusion into/and exclusion from foreign policy agenda. Evolution of Lithuanian foreign policy is seen through the lens of four periods: sovereignty period (1990-1994), period of integration into Euro-atlantic institutions (1994-2004), period of euphoria, when crucial foreign policy goals are reached and country starts to position itself in Euro-atlantic institutions (2004-2010), and the period of pragmatism and specialization (since 2010), when mainstreams, interests and goals within regional organizations are defined, and country can bring more attention to the process of specialized interest setting (energy security, nuclear safety and security, cybersecurity, ect.) within EU and NATO, including by closer cooperation with sub-regional countries Nordic, Baltic, as well as keeping in foreign policy agenda the promotion of Eastern European integration into EU and NATO. In the context of foreign policy dynamics, the perception of "we" and "the other" is one of the most interesting for constructivist scholars. The article identifies the dynamics of "we" category and basic trend in defining "the other" in Lithuanian foreign policy.[.]

United States of America (U.S.) is still undoubtedly the most powerful state in the world therefore diverse analysis of its foreign policy is very important. There is no doubt that U.S. tries to secure its current position using various foreign policy instruments. What can be called U.S. Grand Strategy depends on many external and internal factors and foreign policy visions of two main political parties of U.S. are not at last place. Political parties can possibly be important object of foreign policy analysis in case when state's democratic political system is fully functioning and state has many competing visions of its role in international arena. These features are typical of U.S. political system therefore analysis of foreign policy visions of state's two main political parties is very relevant. The main object of this research is foreign policy views of the Republican Party of United States. The main goal of this research is to analyse change of foreign policy views of the Republican Party in the period 2000 - 2013. U.S. political system is characterized by strong presidential institution that has authority to lead state's foreign policy. However U.S. Congress also has various political instruments that can be used to support or restrict initiatives of U.S. President. President is also the leading voice and leader of his political party and represents consensus of party's ideology. This research concludes that U.S. political parties are broad coalitions of various social, interest groups. Due to this feature, distinct caucuses exist inside political parties. They can support totally different policy options. Consensus that can help sustain party's discipline is reached only in the process of permanent negotiations among these caucuses. Analysed period is important because it signifies shift of U.S. foreign policy priorities and also shift of dominant foreign policy views of the Republican Party. Changes of dominant foreign policy views in this period demonstrated that different foreign policy visions had always existed among conservative politicians, experts, think tanks and other institutions. Predominance of particular values is best highlighted by presidential leadership and his foreign policy doctrine. This research is divided into three main parts. This research uses explanatory case study method that is based on content analysis of political addresses, speeches, documents and secondary sources.

Grønlands udenrigspolitiske repræsentanter benytter den store internationale interesse for Arktis til at positionere Grønland som en mere selvstændig udenrigspolitisk aktør. Det er muligt, da Danmark er afhængig af Grønland for at opretholde sin status som "arktisk stat", og fordi Grønlands udenrigspolitiske kompetence er åben for fortolkning. Denne artikel analyserer, hvordan repræsentanter for skiftende grønlandske regeringer har udvidet det udenrigspolitiske handlerum ved i diskurs og praksis at styrke Grønlands position i en arktisk kontekst. Det er blandt andet opnået ved 1) højlydt at italesætte utilfredshed i Arktisk Råd, 2) stiltiende symbolske handlinger ved Ilulissat-erklæringens tiårs jubilæum, og 3) ved at mime suverænitet ved Arctic Circle konferencen, der pga. sin mere uformelle struktur er særligt nyttig til at styrke bilaterale internationale relationer. ; Greenland's foreign policy representatives use the great international attention to the Arctic to appear and act as a more sovereign foreign policy actor. This is possible due to Denmark's dependence on Greenland to maintain its "Arctic state" status and because Greenland's foreign policy competence is open to interpretation. The article analyzes how representatives of shifting Greenlandic governments have expanded the foreign policy room for manoeuvre in discourse and praxis to strengthen Greenland's position at Arctic-related events. This has been achieved by, among other things, 1) outspoken discontent in the Arctic Council, 2) tacit gestures at the Ilulissat Declaration's 10-year anniversary, and 3) by mimicking full sovereignty at the Arctic Circle conference serving as a particularly useful platform for enhancing bilateral international relations due to its more informal setup.