Suchergebnisse

Starting from the recurrent criticism that role theory is conceptually rich but methodologically poor, this article assesses the potential of interpretive narrative analysis for the methodological development of role theory within foreign policy analysis. It focuses on the methodological side of narratives from an interpretive perspective, so as to detect role conceptions and role change. The symbolic-interactionist role theory framework is already set up to incorporate the elements of doing interpretive narrative analysis from this perspective, because, as Mead (The philosophy of the present, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1932) argued, agents constantly reinterpret their past as they face an emergent present. This is akin to Bevir and Rhodes' (Interpreting British Governance, Routledge, Abingdon, 2003) interpretive notions of 'traditions' and 'dilemmas'. The potential of narratives is demonstrated by focusing specifically on ruling narrations as advanced by the then President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (1999–2013), to conceive and cement a new role as a revolutionary state.

For too long, scholars of foreign policy analysis (FPA) have ceded ground to structural international relations theories' mantra that it is impossible to explain international comes by using unit level factors. This paper argues that structural IR theories such as neorealism and neoliberalism throw up more puzzles than answers when it comes to explaining post-Cold War Asia's peace and economic dynamism; I contend that FPA variables such as political ideology, threat perceptions, and leadership, bring us closer to understanding those outcomes. This approach brings back the role of agency and choice in a way that suggest that they trump structure, not only in explaining the foreign policies of individual states, but also in explaining international outcomes such as peace and economic dynamism.

In recent years geographic mental maps have made a comeback into the spotlight of scholarly inquiry in the area of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). While never disappearing completely from scholarly examination, geographic mental maps were side-lined in most geographic and international relations (IR) research agendas. While geographers had long acknowledged the importance of mental maps in the study of international politics, few studies centred on the influence of geographic cognition on foreign policy. Only with the cognitive revolution in IR did geographic mental maps find space to develop conceptually and empirically with regards to international politics. Beginning with Henrikson's initial conceptualisation over three decades ago the mental map research agenda has adopted several different theoretical and methodological approaches which will be analysed in the current article.

Pakistan is a young country with a significant foreign policy record. Within a short timeframe, it went from being a front-line state to an insignificant actor, and back to a front-line state again with significance on the world stage. This thesis seeks to enhance the understanding of the South Asian country's foreign policy and aims to answer the research question "what are the drivers of change in Pakistani foreign policy?". The thesis is a within-case study where the periods 1989-1998 and 1999-2009 are compared and discussed. The dataset used to answer the research question is comprised of the speeches given by Pakistani representatives in the United Nations' General Assembly debate, which are held yearly in New York. These are analyzed with a theoretical framework grounded between Realism and Constructivism, with focus on analytical concepts such as national role conceptions, and with the State as the main unit of analysis. The research shows that the drivers of change in Pakistan's foreign policy is its national role conceptions. These roles are again influenced by the global political context, Pakistan's existential conflict with India, and Pakistan's Muslim identity. ; submittedVersion ; M-IR

Articles in Foreign Affairs have always been an informative collection of opinions, which allowed understanding how the U.S., and especially its intellectuals that comment on international relations, perceive other countries and their foreign policies. Then when an international crisis comes, such as the one in Ukraine in 2014 and the subsequent annexation of Crimea, one wonders if the Western analysts might have predicted such outcome. The article analyzes more than three dozen Foreign Affairs publications from 1999 to 2013 and concludes that the authors held rather close-minded views when it comes to foreign policy analysis. They did not present a holistic standpoint, but tried to answer all questions with only a limited number of tools and foci. It is also concluded that combining the realist, liberal internationalist and constructivist attitudes would have allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the process of creation of Russian foreign policy.

Articles in Foreign Affairs have always been an informative collection of opinions, which allowed understanding how the U.S., and especially its intellectuals that comment on international relations, perceive other countries and their foreign policies. Then when an international crisis comes, such as the one in Ukraine in 2014 and the subsequent annexation of Crimea, one wonders if the Western analysts might have predicted such outcome. The article analyzes more than three dozen Foreign Affairs publications from 1999 to 2013 and concludes that the authors held rather close-minded views when it comes to foreign policy analysis. They did not present a holistic standpoint, but tried to answer all questions with only a limited number of tools and foci. It is also concluded that combining the realist, liberal internationalist and constructivist attitudes would have allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the process of creation of Russian foreign policy.

How can we theorise more effectively the relationship among gender, sexuality, race and foreign policy? To explore this question, and to contribute to the nascent field of feminist foreign policy (analysis), this paper brings together two bodies of international relations (IR) literature: postcolonial feminism and post-positivist foreign policy analysis (FPA). This paper contributes a fundamental critique of both 'conventional' and 'unconventional' (namely post-positivist) FPA to demonstrate the lack of attention paid to postcolonial and feminist theories within FPA. In turn, this exposes the ways in which FPA marginalises, and renders inconsequential, the gendered, sexualised and racialised dimensions underwriting foreign policy practice and discourse. While post-positivist FPA seeks to rectify the silences that characterise 'conventional' and 'unconventional' (namely constructivist) FPA, this literature remains blind to the ways that intersecting oppressions, operating through hierarchies of social categories made possible through their naturalisation, inform the process, the production and the resultant gendered consequences of foreign policy. Moreover, while there are limited country-specific examinations (residing outside of FPA) on gender and foreign policy that offer useful insights, they are theoretically limited. Like much post-positivist feminism, these examinations privilege gender as a social category, omitting race and other markers of difference. Rather than presenting 'gender', 'sexuality' and 'race' as concepts only for interdisciplinary inquiry, it is propounded here that they should be seen as vital to the study and practice of foreign policy. Advancing the untested promise of a postcolonial feminist approach to FPA that (re-) centres intersectionality, (re-)instates connected histories, and (re-)configures normative orders, this paper argues that foreign policy should be re-conceptualised as gendered, sexualised and racialised. It is hoped this intervention may offer a blueprint to seriously engage with the possibility of a postcolonial feminist foreign policy approach to FPA, and to think anew about how that may be translated beyond the discipline: advocating for a symbiotic and complimentary feminist foreign and domestic policy that fundamentally challenges rather that maintains the status quo.

Tässä väitöskirjassa tutkitaan, miten yhtäältä henkilökohtaiset ja toisaalta jaetut ideat sekä ajatusmaailmat vaikuttavat ulkopolitiikan tekoon. Väitöstyön viisi itsenäistä tutkimusta tarkastelevat Suomen ulkopolitiikkaa jostain ideationaalisesta näkökulmasta. Vaikka artikkelit käsittelevät Suomen ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan eri ajanjaksoja, työ on kiinnostunut erityisesti kylmän sodan loppuvuosista sekä kylmän sodan jälkeisen ajan alusta. Työn keskeinen teoreettinen väite on, että kattavan näkemyksen ideoiden vaikutuksesta ulkopolitiikkaan voidaan saavuttaa vain lähestymistavalla, joka yhdistää ulkopolitiikan analyysin subjektiivisiin sekä intersubjektiivisiin ideoihin keskittyvien teorioiden pääperiaatteet. Tutkimus korostaa, että integroiva menettelytapa on sovellettavissa eri ulkopolitiikan tutkimuksen analyysintasoilla. Yhdistävän lähestymistavan soveltaminen perustuu näkemykseen siitä, että yksilökeskeiset psykologiset teoriat ja sosiaalisuutta korostavat konstruktivistiset lähestymistavat täydentävät toistensa heikkouksia. Väitöstyö rakentaa argumenttinsa jatkamalla ja täydentämällä Vaughn P. Shannonin and Paul M. Kowertin kirjassaan Psychology and Constructivism in International Relations: An Ideational Alliance aloittamaa tutkimusohjelmaa. Ideationaalisen allianssin asemesta tutkimuksessa kuitenkin puhutaan ideationaalisesta ulkopolitiikan tutkimuksesta (Ideational Foreign Policy Analysis, IFPA). Valintaan on kaksi syytä. Ensinnäkin ideationaalinen ulkopolitiikan analyysi ottaa teoriaperinteiden väliseen dialogiin mukaan lisää teoreettisia näkökulmia sekä analyysin tasoja. Se siis toimii kattokäsitteenä ulkopolitiikan analyysin eri ideoiden merkitystä korostaville lähestymistavoille. Toinen syy valinnalle on semanttinen. Rationaalisia ja ideationaalisia teorioita ei tule nähdä täysin vastakohtaisina, ja tutkimusohjelman rakentaminen jotain käsitystä vastaan lähettää turhan vahvan viestin. Idea itsessään on käsitteenä liian epämääräinen, jotta sitä voitaisiin käyttää ulkopolitiikan tutkimuksen työkaluna. Tarkempia ja selitysvoimaisempia käsitteitä tarvitaan, jotta ideoiden maailmaa voidaan yksinkertaistaa ja tehdä ymmärrettäväksi. Väitöskirja hyödyntääkin konstruktivismin ja psykologisen ulkopolitiikan analyysin käsitteistöä. Tarkemmin sanottuna tutkimus soveltaa ideationaalisen ulkopolitiikan periaatteita neljällä eri analyysin tasolla. Samalla se tarkastelee tarkemmin neljää eri ulkopolitiikan analyysin teoriakokonaisuutta. Väitöstutkimuksen ensimmäinen teoreettinen osio selittää yksilöiden uskomusjärjestelmien merkitystä ulkopolitiikan tekemisessä ja korostaa sosiaalisen ympäristön merkitystä yksilön ajatusmaailman lähteenä. Työn toinen kumpuavaa kansallisen identiteetin mallin, jossa kollektiivisen kansallisen omakuvan perusta on yksilön identifioituminen tiettyyn kansakuntaan. Tämän lisäksi tutkimus jakaa kansallisen identiteetin kolmeen komponenttiin: maailmankuviin, poliittiseen tarkoitukseen ja statukseen. Tutkimuksen kolmas teoreettinen mielenkiinnon kohde on yleisen mielipiteen ja ulkopolitiikan suhde, ja se hahmottaa kolme julkinen mielipiteen ja ulkopolitiikan välistä dynamiikkaa. "Alhaalta ylös" –mallissa kansalaismielipide vaikuttaa selvästi ulkopolitiikan tekemiseen, siinä missä "ylhäältä alas" –dynamiikassa valtiojohto pyrkii muokkaamaan yleistä mielipidettä. Kolmannessa mallissa ulkopolitiikan tekeminen ja julkinen mielipide eivät ole yhteydessä johtuen kansalaisten kiinnostuksen puutteesta tai poliittisen johdon välinpitämättömyydestä. Käsiteltyään kolmea valtion sisäistä analyysitasoa tutkimus kiinnittää huomiota ideoiden rooliin valtioiden välisissä suhteissa. Se käsittelee valtioiden välistä luottamusta kolmesta eri teoreettisesta perspektiivistä, ja analysoi, miten erityisesti valtioiden välillä koettu epäluottamus voi vaikuttaa niiden keskinäisiin suhteisiin. Toisin sanoen osiossa tutkitaan, miten valtiotoimijan piirissä elätellyt ideat ilmentyvät kahden maan keskinäisessä kanssakäymisessä. Väitöstutkimus koostuu viidestä itsenäisestä tutkimusartikkelista, jotka käsittelevät Suomen ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan eri aspekteja. Laajemman, konstruktivismia ja psykologiaa integroivan, teoreettisen tavoitteen ohella artikkeleilla on omat teoreettiset päämääränsä, jotka tukevat työn kattavampaa tavoitetta. Julkaisu I tutkii Mauno Koiviston uskomusjärjestelmää ja samalla punniskelee, miten sosiaalinen ympäristö vaikuttaa yksilön uskomuksiin. Se kutsuu Koiviston ajattelumaailmaa suurvaltaempiristiseksi. Lisäksi se väittää, että kylmän sodan loppuminen ei sanottavammin muuttanut Koiviston uskomusjärjestelmää, mikä tuki jatkuvuutta myös Suomen ulko- ja turvallisuuspoliittisessa linjassa. Julkaisu II taas yhdistää koulukuntakäsitteen ja valtioin sisäisessä diskurssissa kilpailevat käsitykset valtiolle sopivasta omakuvasta. Samalla se edistää alhaalta ylös kumpuavaa näkemystä kansallisesta identiteetistä. Tutkimus hahmottaa neljä Suomen kylmän sodan lopussa ja sen jälkeisen ajan alussa vaikuttanutta koulukuntaa – pienvaltiorealismin, integrationismin, euroatlantismin ja globalismin. Eurorealistiselle maailmankuvalle perustunut integrationismi oli koulukunnista selvästi vahvin. Suomen kylmän sodan jälkeisen ajan alkuvuosien ulkopolitiikassa oli kuitenkin elementtejä jokaisesta neljästä koulukunnasta. Julkaisu III tarkastelee yleisen mielipiteen ja ulkopolitiikan suhdetta Suomen ulkopolitiikan historiassa. Se väittää, että Suomen ulkopolitiikasta on löydettävissä kolme erilaista mallia kansalaismielipiteen ja ulkopolitiikan välillä. Itsenäistymisen alkuvuosina ja sotienvälisenä aikana ulkopolitiikka ja yleinen mielipide eivät juuri kommunikoineet. Tilanne muuttui kylmän sodan alettua, ja kyseistä aikakautta leimasikin valtiojohdon vahva pyrkimys muokata yleistä mielipidettä. Kylmän sodan loputtua julkinen mielipide voimaantui ja se alkoi vahvemmin vaikuttaa ulkopoliittisiin päätöksiin. Työn seuraava tutkimus, julkaisu IV, analysoi Suomen ja Ruotsin puolustusyhteistyössä ilmenevää epäluottamusta. Se toisin sanoen tarkastelee, miten Suomessa Ruotsia kohtaan tunnettu epäluottamus vaikuttaa maiden väliseen yhteistyöhön turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikassa. Tutkimuksessa on kolme teoreettista argumenttia. Ensinnäkin tutkimuksessa on syytä erottaa tiettyjen kokemuksien aiheuttamat luottamuksen menetykset (mistrust) laajemmasta epäluottamuksen tunteesta (distrust). Toiseksi on huomioitava se, että luottamus on skaalattava ilmiö. Valtioiden välistä luottamusta on mahdollista arvioida ideaalityyppisten minimaalisen (reliance) ja täyden luottamuksen välillä. Kolmanneksi tutkimuksessa olisi syytä erottaa pettymyksen ja petetyksi tulemisen tunteet. Artikkelin keskeisin empiirinen argumentti on se, että uusi kireämpi turvallisuuspoliittinen tilanne ja lisääntynyt puolustusyhteistyö Suomen ja Ruotsin välillä on saanut suomalaisen eliitin keskuudessa nousemaan muistot vuodesta 1990, jolloin Ruotsi yllättäen päätti hakea jäsenyyttä Euroopan yhteisössä. Tällä kertaa pelkona on Ruotsin yllättävä liittyminen Natoon. Suomen ja Ruotsin puolustusyhteistyön keskeinen tavoite onkin syventää maiden välistä luottamussuhdetta, ja lisääntyvä luottamus on syvenevän yhteistyön ennakkoehto. Väitöstyön viimeinen tutkimus, julkaisu V, tutkii suomettumisen eri puolia. Tutkimuksen lähestymistapa on historiallinen, mutta se sisältää elementtejä väitöstyössä käsiteltävistä analyysin tasoista. Tutkimus ymmärtää suomettumisen ennen kaikkea poliittisena kulttuurina, joka syntyi Suomen kylmän sodan ulkopoliittisen doktriinin kylkiäisenä. Kulttuuri toisin sanoen tuki Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton välistä ystävyyspolitiikkaa. Vaikka Suomen kylmän sodan ulkopolitiikkaa voidaan pitää onnistuneena, suomettumisen kulttuuri sisälsi ylilyöntejä, jotka itse asiassa syövyttivät Suomen ulkopolitiikan keskeisiä tavoitteita kuten maan suvereniteetin säilymistä. Kuten todettua, tutkimus on kiinnostunut erityisesti kylmän sodan lopusta ja kylmän sodan jälkeisen ajan ensimmäisistä vuosista. Tarkastelemalla ja yhdistämällä viiden yllämainitun julkaisun tuloksia tutkimus pyrkii ymmärtämään, miten kylmän sodan loppuminen muutti Suomen ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan ideationaalisia perusteita. äitöstyö toteaakin, että muutos tapahtui kolmessa suhteessa. Ensinnäkin Suomen turvallisuuspoliittisessa orientaatiossa tapahtui muutos. Pienvaltiorealismin ajasta siirryttiin integrationismin aikaan. Suomi lähti lopulta innokkaasti mukaan Euroopan integraatioon unohtamatta kuitenkaan geopoliittisen realismin pääoppeja. Suomen uusi ulkopoliittinen suuntaus perustuikin eurorealismille. Realismin säilymisellä oli konkreettisia vaikutuksia Suomen ulkopoliittiseen doktriiniin – erityisesti päätökseen jatkaa liittoutumattomuuspolitiikkaa. Toiseksi eritoten suomalaiset politiikantekijät ja eliitin edustajat kokivat Suomen länsimaisuuden vahvistuneen. Suomettumisen leima katosi, ja maa kykeni ajamaan intressejään täysivaltaisena länsimaana. Kolmanneksi suomalaisen ulkopolitiikan teon ideationaalisessa ympäristössä tapahtui tietynlainen vapautuminen. Yritykset kontrolloida yleistä mielipidettä ja ulkopoliittista keskustelua vähenivät, ja erilaiset ideat Suomen ulkopolitiikan perusteista saivat kilpailla vapaammin kuin kylmän sodan aikana. Kylmän sodan loppumisen jälkeen suomalaisessa keskustelussa on ollut aitoja vaihtoehtoja kulloinkin vallitsevalle ulkopoliittiselle linjalle, ja yritykset luoda ulkopoliittista konsensusta ovat vähentyneet. ; This doctoral dissertation seeks to demonstrate how personal and collective ideas affect foreign policy. The five original publications making up the dissertation all investigate Finnish foreign policy from various ideational aspects. Although the publications deal with different periods of Finnish foreign affairs, the dissertation places particular emphasis on the end of the Cold War and early post-Cold War years. The dissertation's main theoretical claim is that in order to reach a comprehensive understanding of the significance of ideas in foreign policy, one must concentrate on both individual and intersubjective ideas and that this approach is applicable at multiple levels of analysis. In other words, the dissertation suggests that one must harness the respective strengths of cognitive psychology and constructivism, and adopt an integrative approach to the analysis of foreign policy. The rationale behind the integrative approach is the viewpoint that psychology and constructivism support each other's weaknesses. The dissertation builds its theoretical argument on a research program initiated by Vaughn P. Shannon and Paul M. Kowert in their book Psychology and Constructivism in International Relations: An Ideational Alliance. However, instead of an ideational alliance, the dissertation speaks of Ideational Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA). There are two main reasons for this choice. First, IFPA incorporates additional theoretical perspectives and levels of analysis into the realm of ideational dialogue. Thus, it serves as an umbrella for the various ideational approaches of FPA. Secondly, the decision to use another concept is a matter of semantics. To imply that a theoretical construct is against something sends a strong signal, and it is perhaps unnecessary to see material/rational and ideational views as polar opposites. Moreover, "idea" is too broad and vague a concept to be employed as an analytical tool, since ideas are practically infinite and ubiquitous. In order to conduct a sound and theoretically solid analysis, one needs more specific concepts to simplify the world of ideas and to make it understandable. This research taps into the vocabulary of constructivism and political psychology, particularly cognitive and social psychology. More precisely, the dissertation applies the principles of IFPA to four levels of analysis, and sheds light on four different theoretical approaches. The first section of the theoretical chapter explains the importance of individual belief systems in foreign policymaking, and highlights the significance of the social environment as a source of individual beliefs. The second theoretical contribution relates to national identity. The dissertation advocates a bottom-up view of national identity, in which the basis of collective national self-images is in fact individual identifications with a nation state. Furthermore, national identity is divided into three components: worldview, political purpose and status. The third theoretical question under scrutiny is the public opinion-foreign policy nexus. The dissertation outlines three dynamics between public opinion and foreign policy. In the bottom-up model, public opinion clearly influences foreign policymaking, whereas the top-down dynamic refers to a situation whereby leaders actively try to shape public views. The third model is disconnection, which describes a condition where there is either a public disinterest toward foreign policy, or where decision-makers neglect the opinions of the public. In this context, the principles of IFPA elaborate the public opinion- foreign policy link in two central ways. Firstly, the beliefs of ordinary citizens come about in a process akin to elite opinion formation – that is, in the interplay between inherent dispositions and the social environment. Secondly, the manner in which decision-makers understand the importance of public views is partly dependent on their belief systems. After treating the three intra-state levels, the dissertation moves on to inter-state relationships. More precisely, it discusses the issue of trust from three theoretical perspectives, and points out how intra-state ideas of trustworthiness may affect inter-state interaction, namely foreign policy. In other words, the section's main purpose is to show how certain ideas can affect bilateral relations between two states. The dissertation consists of five publications, which all deal with different aspects of Finnish foreign and security policy and which to a varying degree apply the principles of IFPA. In addition to the overarching theoretical objective of promoting the synthesis of psychology and constructivism, every publication has its own theoretical objectives that serve the broader goal of ideational integration. The aim of Publication I on the belief system of Mauno Koivisto is to understand the effects of the social environment on individual beliefs. It claims that Koivisto's belief system is best described as great-power empiricist. Moreover, the article argues that the great transformation caused by the end of the Cold War did not considerably change Koivisto's belief system. Publication II links the schools of thought approach to the intra-state competition between different national identities, and promotes a bottom-up view of national identity rooted in psychology. It outlines the Finnish foreign policy schools of thought at the beginning of the post-Cold War era: small state realism, integrationism, euro-atlanticism and globalism. Integrationism, which was based on a "eurorealist" worldview, was clearly the most powerful school. Finnish early post-Cold War foreign policy nevertheless contained elements from all four schools. The focus of Publication III is on the historical nexus between public opinion and Finnish foreign policy. It claims that three different models of the public opinion- foreign policy nexus have prevailed in Finland during its independence: a disconnection in the years of early independence, the top-down model of the Cold War, and a stronger bottom-up dynamic of the post-Cold War era. In other words, in the post-Cold War era, public opinion has become a stronger force in Finnish foreign policymaking. Publication IV unpacks Finnish beliefs on the untrustworthiness of Sweden as a defense cooperation partner and is thus interested in the interstate-level manifestations of individual and collective ideas. The study lays out three main theoretical arguments. Firstly, it differentiates between distrust and mistrust. The second point the article drives home is that trust is a scalable phenomenon. Thirdly and lastly, the article suggests that a sense of disappointment and a feeling of being betrayed must be separated. Its chief empirical argument is that the Finnish experiences of misplaced trust from October 1990 and Sweden's surprise announcement of its ambition to join the European Communities have now manifested as elite-level mistrust towards Sweden as a defense cooperation partner. In order to intensify mutual defense cooperation, Helsinki and Stockholm must overcome the looming mistrust in their defense relationship. The final publication, Publication V, explores different aspects of Finlandization. The analytical approach to the phenomenon is historical, but it nevertheless contains elements from the four levels of analysis. The publication treats Finlandization first and foremost as a political culture, which was born in part to support the official foreign policy line vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. One can argue that the foreign policy strategy of Finland was rather successful but that the political culture of Finlandization had excessive features. It is therefore too naïve to interpret Finlandization only as a successful foreign policy strategy, as some international commentators have done. In fact, it can be said that some of the features of the culture actually eroded the hard core, namely Finnish sovereignty, which the foreign policy strategy tried to preserve. As implied, in addition to the interests in the original publications, the dissertation has an interest in the end the Cold War and in the early post-Cold War years. More specifically, it aims at understanding what the end of the Cold War meant in terms of the ideational foundations of Finnish foreign policy. The study suggests that it signified three things in particular. First, it led to an adjustment from small-state realism to integrationism as the primary orientation of foreign policy. In other words, Finland enthusiastically adopted a pro- European integration policy, but did not forget the core tenets of geopolitical realism. Thus, the approach was based on a "eurorealist" worldview. Secondly, the end of the era vindicated Finland in terms of its Western-ness in the minds of decision-makers. To put it differently, Finland was finally released from the stigma of Finlandization, and was free to pursue its ambitions as an accepted Western nation. Thirdly, the ideational milieu of Finnish foreign policymaking became more relaxed, as the attempts to shape public opinion and control societal debate diminished and as ideas about Finland's position in the world were able to compete more freely. Ever since the end of the Cold War, there have been genuine alternatives to the existing poli attempts to impose a consensus have been less considerable.

Does the regional environment shape a state's international socialization and, thus, its perception on external affairs? If this is the case, how does such a process happen and what are the consequences for a state's global foreign policy? We tackle both questions by elaborating an analytical framework that accounts for spatial-temporal interactions in foreign policy. We accomplish such a task by reporting the preliminary findings of a comparison of Brazil's and India's views on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Through the method of difference, we conclude that those emerging powers' approaches to the NPT derive from the regional dynamic of power in which they are embedded. Brazil solved sensitive security issues in South America with its main regional rival, Argentina, institutionalizing regional relationships in the 1990s, whereas India continued to face enduring tensions in South Asia with its neighbors, particularly Pakistan. Brazilian policymakers thus perceived the post-Cold War international society through more benign lenses than their Indian counterparts, having signed the NPT in 1998. In that same year, India became a nuclear power. Other issue-areas — namely the environment, human rights, and trade — shall be analyzed in the future using the same framework.

Foreign policy analysis of a Baltic state. Lithuania and 'Grybauskaitė Doctrine' by Tomas Janeliūnas takes the reader on an academic-historic journey through a diverse selection of possible lenses, including "small state", "Baltic state(s)", "Lithuanian foreign policy" and "Grybauskaitė as an actor". These not necessarily overlapping paths coalesce around eleven chapters that seek to familiarize the reader with the foreign policy doctrine of Dalia Grybauskaitė, who served as president of Lithuania between 2009 and 2019. In the introductory chapter of the book, the author does not reveal or introduce the reader to the core essence of Grybauskaitė's doctrine. Instead, the author only introduces the sources of studying the doctrine; namely, the speeches of Grybauskaite and interviews conducted while undertaking the research. ; N/A

Abstract: Foreign policy analysis (FPA), recognized as a sub-discipline of international relations, focused on explaining foreign policy or, alternatively, on the processes and behaviors in the framework of this policy. FPA is characterized by an actor-specific focus, based upon the argument that all that occurs between nations and across nations is grounded in human decision-makers acting singly or in groups. Explication of the process and the behavior of decision-makers may need to reach categories and tools developed within other disciplines. The main aim of the paper is to identify the emphasis of interdisciplinary research especially in the perspective adopted by the author of the individual level of analysis of foreign policy. The use of tools and categories relevant to the study of political leadership and political psychology, may allow, more than ever, verifiability of assertions in the study of foreign policy. ; Analiza polityki zagranicznej ujmowana jako subdyscyplina stosunków międzynarodowych albo alternatywnie wyodrębniony obszar badawczy koncentruje się na wyjaśnianiu polityki zagranicznej, nawiązując do teoretycznych założeń i twierdzeń na temat ludzkich zachowań jednostek. Eksplikacja zachowań i decyzji decydentów podejmowanych w ramach polityki zagranicznej może wymagać sięgnięcia do kategorii i narzędzi wypracowanych w ramach innych dyscyplin. Celem artykułu jest wskazanie interdyscyplinarności badań, zwłaszcza przy przyjętej przez autorkę perspektywie jednostkowego poziomu analizy polityki zagranicznej. Zastosowanie narzędzi i kategorii właściwych studiom nad przywództwem politycznym, a także psychologii politycznej może umożliwić większą niż dotychczas weryfikowalność twierdzeń w badaniach nad polityką zagraniczną.

After Azerbaijan gained its independence, the main problem in its foreign policy was the Karabakh conflict with Armenia. Among the different approaches to solve this problem in foreign policy was the view that a cooperation or conflict-based approach could explain interstate relations and the classical theories of international relations can discuss them; this has been the dominant view in the foreign policy of Azerbaijan. We conducted a literature review in developing the conceptual framework for this study. The effect of the anarchic international system on the foreign policy of Azerbaijan, the attitude of the sovereign states and international political organizations in the system, the strategy of Azerbaijan that started with the balance policy, and the 44-day Armenia-Azerbaijan war will be examined from the perspective of neorealist theory. From this, it will be possible to reveal the importance of the balance policy in Azerbaijan's foreign policy. This study aims to include the approach to the security problem in the foreign policy of Azerbaijan since its independence, and the strategies it has created to solve the Karabakh problem, using a certain theoretical framework.

Ova analiza vanjske politike socijalističke Jugoslavije, a posebno razdoblja vladavine Josipa Broza Tita, prvo je politološko razmatranje te teme nasuprot većini studija koja se njome bave iz historiografske perspektive. U prvom dijelu članka prikazani su glavni elementi analize vanjske politike, pri čemu se autor usredotočuje na odnos aktera i struktura kao jedan njezin element. U drugom dijelu prikazane su teorijske i metodološke postavke na kojima se zasniva analiza vanjske politike socijalističke Jugoslavije. Autor zaključuje da je proces odlučivanja o vanjskoj politici Jugoslavije evoluirao od 1945. do 1980. tako što je Tito, kao glavni donositelj odluka, sve više morao voditi računa o strukturi i raznim akterima unutar nje. Očita je bila sve veća pluralizacija procesa odlučivanja, kako na horizontalnoj razini, u interakciji Saveznog sekretarijata za inozemne poslove, partijskog vrha i Titova kabineta, tako i na vertikalnoj osi, kroz utjecaj republika i pokrajina na odlučivanje na saveznoj razini. Iako je ostao glavni donositelj odluka, Titovu su moć s vremenom znatno ograničili utjecaji drugih aktera, osobito otkako je sedamdesetih godina Predsjedništvo SFRJ dobilo mnoge ovlasti. ; Unlike the great majority of analyses that have taken the historiographic perspective, this study of socialist Yugoslavia's foreign policy, focusing on the Josip Broz Tito era, is the first of its kind to provide a perspective of political science. The first section of this article provides an overview of the main elements of foreign policy analysis, whereby the author focuses on the relationship between the actors and the structures as one of its inherent elements. The second section offers insight into the theoretical and methodological tenets on which the analysis of socijalist Yugoslavia's foreign policy resides. The author argues that the foreign-policy decision-making process in Yugoslavia evolved between 1945 and 1980 as Tito, the chief decision-maker, increasingly had to take into account the structure and the multiple actors within that structure. Evidently, the decision-making processes were becoming more and more pluralized both horizontally, in the interaction between the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs, party leadership and Tito's cabinet, and vertically – as seen from the influence the republics and provinces hadon federal decision-making. Though he remained the chief decision-maker, with time Tito's power became limited by other actors' influence, in particular after the Presidency of Yugoslavia was given extensive authority in the 1970s.

The subject of this article is a critical reflection on how to analyse contemporary foreign policy. In times of ever-faster globalisation and deepening European integration two questions appear to be particularly important: to what extent are the classic(al) methods of explaining and analysing foreign policy still relevant? Are new theoretical concepts needed that are functional and useful? To accomplish the task described above, structural realism, as one of the major theories of international relations, has been juxtaposed with the very popular concept of Europeanization. Following this path, the relevant literature, consisting predominantly of Kenneth Waltz's works published after the end of the Cold War and the creation of the EU, has been reviewed and analysed. As for Europeanization, materials devoted to the specific issue of its impact on the foreign policies of European states and the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy as a whole has been used. To summarise, the attempt to combine and synthesize structural realism and the concept of Europeanization has been undertaken in search for an optimal (in a cognitive and explanatory aspect) method of analysing the foreign policies of EU Member States.

Bu çalışmada, uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde yaşanan kuramsal çeşitlenme neticesinde realist gelenek içerisinde başlayan eleştiri ve sorgulamalara bağlı olarak ortaya çıkan neoklasik realizmin temel argümanları, amaçları ve kullanılma alanları sorgulanmıştır. Disiplinin en baskın kuramı olan yapısal (neo) realizmin özünde bir uluslararası politika kuramı olması ve temel belirleyiciliği uluslararası sistemin yapısına vermesi, devletlerin münferit dış politikalarının yarattığı etkilerin incelenmesinde eksikliklere neden olmuştur. Esasen bir dış politika analizi yaklaşımı olan neoklasik realizm de bu eksikliğin giderilmesi amacıyla uluslararası sistemin baskısı ile yerel dinamiklerin belirleyiciliğini birleştirerek dış politika davranışlarının anlaşılması için kuramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Makalede, neoklasik realizmin diğer realist kuramlardan nasıl ayrıldığı, kurguladığı dış politika analizi modelinin bileşenleri olan bağımsız, bağımlı ve ara değişkenler üzerinden incelenmiş ve nihayetinde neoklasik realizme yönelik eleştiriler yeni çalışmalar üzerinden tartışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak da özellikle değişen uluslararası politika koşullarının çözümlenmesi noktasında realist bakış açısından devletlerin dış politikalarının analiz edilmesinin alana sağladığı katkı açıklanmaya çalışılmışt ; In this study, the main arguments, aims and application areas of neoclassical realism which emerged as a result of the criticism and questioning within the realist tradition due to the theoretical diversification experienced after the Cold War in the discipline of international relations are questioned. The fact that the dominant theory of the discipline, structural (neo) realism, indeed is an international policy theory and that it gives the fundamental determinants to the structure of the international system has caused deficiencies in examining the effects of individual foreign policies of the states. Neoclassical realism, which is essentially a foreign policy analysis approach, provides a theoretical framework for understanding foreign policy behaviors by combining the determinism of local dynamics with the pressure of the international system in order to overcome this deficiency. In the article, how neoclassical realism differs from other realist theories is examined through independent, dependent and intervening variables which are the components of the foreign policy analysis model it has constructed, and ultimately criticisms of neoclassical realism are discussed through new studies. And finally, the contribution the analysis of the foreign policies of the states from the realist point of view has made especially to the analysis of the changing international policy conditions has been tried to be explained