Suchergebnisse

Issues for Oct. 5, 1925-Jan. 29, 1926 called series 1925-26, no. 1-8. ; Some vols. accompanied by supplements. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Absorbed by its Foreign policy bulletin Sept. 1951.

Foreign Policy Association D.C. - Foreign Policy in the Coming Campaign

Abstract: This paper interrogates certain aspects of Eritrean foreign policy making processes since independence. It analyses Eritrea's actions in the region, ranging from constructive engagement to the country's various conflicts with all its regional neighbours, including the 1998-2000 war with Ethiopia, and Eritrea's wider global attempts at diplomatic and foreign policy engagement. The paper argues that while Eritrea's assertive and often rather un-diplomatic foreign policy overtures are partly to blame for the country's negative image as an international actor, any attempt at developing an independent foreign policy by Eritrea needs at the same time be understood within the wider context of the Horn of Africa and the Ethiopian ambition to act as and maintain the status as regional hegemon. Thus, Eritrean foreign policy objectives were always bound to run into problems once they diverged from Ethiopia's own interests. In addition, Ethiopia became an increasingly important actor in the global war on terror and its manifestations in the Horn of Africa, thus its interpretation of and intransigence over relations with Eritrea became the dominant representation of Eritrea as an inherently belligerent state. Such a reading ignores that ultimately Eritrea's foreign policy engagement asserts the right of every nation to defend its own interests in light of international law and global treaties, regardless of global power dynamics.

With the country's energy needs having increased rapidly due to the unprecedented economic growth, it's apparent that the energy security concerns have become important in influencing the thinking, formation and implementation of China's foreign policy. While this perceived energy insecurity has become an increasingly influencing factor in China's international behavior, it cannot be argued that the country's energy needs is the most important dimension in Beijing's foreign policy calculations. By employing every available tool at its disposal at the political level and by mobilizing the country's economic might and capacity at the financial and industrial levels, China pursues not only the establishment and advance of its political and economic ties with the resources-rich developing countries for energy security reasons, but also a growing presence in such countries. These movements should be seen in a multi-dimensional context, where the country's worldwide-expanding economic and political interests compete and interact with domestic political and social adjustments and balances.

Who decides what in Moscow? The answer is not always "Vladimir Putin". However, when explaining Russia's foreign policy, the consolidation of Putin's autocratic tendencies and his apparent stability despite many economic and political challenges have contributed – at least in the West – to an excessive "Putin-centrism" and the relative neglect of other agents of domestic politics. As a result, many facets of the country's foreign policy decisions are misunderstood or shrouded under a thin veil of vagueness and secrecy. This Report attempts to fill this gap, exploring the evolving distribution of political and economic power under the surface of Putin's leadership to assess the influence of different "lobbies" on Russia's foreign policy. All of the contributions in the volume underline the complexity of Russia's decision-making process beneath the surface of a monolithic and increasingly personalistic government.

Review of Foreign Policy V - Foreign Policy for the Americas

This Article is part of an MA thesis: "Iran Wilayat al Faqih System of Governance and Public Policymaking" which tried to investigate the challenges that public policy in Iran is facing under Wilayat al Faqih system of governance. The article here deals with foreign policy making in Iran from Khatami to Ahmadinejad in regards to both Iran regional roleand Iran-U.S. relations. It sheds light on the challenges that are facing Iranian foreign policy making which can affect both the regime and the ideology of Wilayat al Faqih itself. It also, discusses series of problems that are challenging the authority of the supreme leader which resulted in a power struggle between the supreme leader (representative of the Wilayat al Faqih institution) and the president (representative of the Republican institution) inside the system of governance when it comes to policymaking. The contradictory roles between both is a result of the president limited power in formulating foreign policies, together with his ideological preferences that is different from the supreme leader. The Article concludes by stating that such power struggle between the offices may impact Iran's domestic policies but not Iranian foreign policies, as Iran is becoming a regional power.

Previous research has shown that on issues of foreign policy, individuals have "general stances," "postures," "dispositions" or "orientations" that inform their beliefs toward more discrete issues in international relations. While these approaches delineate the proximate sources of public opinion in the foreign policy domain, they evade an even more important question: what gives rise to these foreign policy orientations in the first place? Combining an original survey on a nationally representative sample of Americans with Schwartz's theory of values from political psychology, we show that people take foreign policy personally: the same basic values we know people use to guide choices in their daily lives also travel to the domain of foreign affairs, offering one potential explanation why people who are otherwise uninformed about world politics nonetheless express coherent foreign policy beliefs.

Previous research shows that, when it comes to foreign policy, individuals have general orientations that inform their beliefs toward more specific issues in international relations. But such studies evade an even more important question: what gives rise to such foreign-policy orientations in the first place? Combining an original survey on a nationally representative sample of Americans with Schwartz's theory of values from political psychology, we show that people take foreign policy personally: the same basic values that people use to guide choices in their daily lives also travel to the domain of foreign affairs. Conservation values are most strongly linked to "militant internationalism," a general hawkishness in international relations. The value of universalism is the most important value for predicting "cooperative internationalism," the foreign-policy orientation marked by a preference for multilateralism and cosmopolitanism in international affairs. This relatively parsimonious and elegant system of values and foreign-policy beliefs is consistent across both high- and low-knowledge respondents, offering one potential explanation for why those people who are otherwise uninformed about world politics nonetheless express coherent foreign-policy beliefs.

Previous research shows that, when it comes to foreign policy, individuals have general orientations that inform their beliefs toward more specific issues in international relations. But such studies evade an even more important question: what gives rise to such foreign-policy orientations in the first place? Combining an original survey on a nationally representative sample of Americans with Schwartz's theory of values from political psychology, we show that people take foreign policy personally: the same basic values that people use to guide choices in their daily lives also travel to the domain of foreign affairs. Conservation values are most strongly linked to "militant internationalism," a general hawkishness in international relations. The value of universalism is the most important value for predicting "cooperative internationalism," the foreignpolicy orientation marked by a preference for multilateralism and cosmopolitanism in international affairs. This relatively parsimonious and elegant system of values and foreign-policy beliefs is consistent across both high- and low-knowledge respondents, offering one potential explanation for why those people who are otherwise uninformed about world politics nonetheless express coherent foreign-policy beliefs.

The 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper emphasises the importance of 'maximising' Australia's power and influence. However, the White Paper and much of the commentary on Australian foreign policy do not clearly conceptualise 'power' or indicate how it ought to be increased. The Lowy Institute's recent Asia Power Index implies one possible strategy via its resource-based approach to measuring power. We outline a different approach and argue that power should be conceptualised and evaluated as a specific relationship causing behavioural change, rather than as a general attribute of its wielder. To complement the Lowy Institute's carefully catalogued database, and facilitate a more focused conversation about maximising power and influence in Australian foreign policy, we offer a typology identifying five pathways through which states can translate their material and non-material resources into outcomes that serve the national interest.

Only annual vol. issued for 1966. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Translation of: La Politique étrangère de la France, presented by "La Documentation française." ; Latest issue consulted: July/Dec. 1970. ; Description based on: Jan./June 1969; title from title page.

Review of Foreign Policy X - International Situation and U.S. Foreign Policy

I am glad to be here to discuss, with the emphasis rather strongly on the word "Economic," the Economic Aspects of For­eign Policy. My remarks will fall under the four principal head­ings: (l) The Principal Conditions That Mold American Foreign Economic Policy; (II) The Objectives of American Foreign Eco­nomic Policy; (III) The Accomplishments of American Foreign Economic Policy, and (IV) Where Do We Stand and What Should we do?

Across politics and public discourse, feminism is experiencing a global renaissance. Yet feminist academic work is divided over the burgeoning use of the term, particularly in reference to economic and international development policy. For some, feminism has been co-opted for neoliberal economic ends; for others, it remains a critical force across the globe. This article explores the nascent feminist foreign policies of Sweden and Canada. Employing a discourse analysis of both states' policy documents, it asks what the term "feminist" meant in preliminary attempts at constructing a feminist foreign policy. It argues that although both use the term "feminist," they understand the term very differently, with Sweden centering it in domestic and international commitments to change, while Canada places greater emphasis on the private sector. This suggests that this policy agenda is still developing its central concepts, and is thus ripe for intervention on the part of policymakers and civil society organizations.