The Influence of Leaders and Regimes on Countries' Foreign Policy Strategies and Practices

Abstract

This study examines the influence of leaders and regimes in shaping states' foreign policy behaviors in international relations. The foreign policy decisions of states are typically influenced by the personal characteristics, psychological profiles, and structural features of the regimes governing these states. The study aims to contribute to existing international relations theories by exploring the effects of leaders and regimes on foreign policy, considering the roles of the deep state and internal dynamics. The findings illustrate how leaders' risk-taking tendencies, ideological beliefs, and psychological motivations impact foreign policy decisions. Additionally, the study focuses on how regime types affect the transparency and risk levels of foreign policy decisions. The deep state and internal dynamics can significantly influence states' foreign policy strategies, and understanding the roles of these structures is critical for comprehending states' behaviors in international relations. The study emphasizes the need for a deeper examination of the psychological profiles of leaders, the role of the deep state, and internal dynamics on foreign policy, and suggests that international relations theories should address these factors more comprehensively.

Keywords

• Influence of Leaders
• Regime Types
• Internal Dynamics
• Foreign Policy

Liderler ve Rejimlerin Ülkelerin Dış Politika Strateji ve Pratiklerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, uluslararası ilişkilerde devletlerin dış politika davranışlarını belirlemede liderlerin ve rejimlerin etkisini ele alır. Devletlerin dış politika kararları, genellikle bu devletleri yöneten liderlerin kişisel özellikleri, psikolojik profilleri ve rejimlerin yapısal özellikleri tarafından şekillendirilir. Çalışma, liderlerin ve rejimlerin dış politika üzerindeki etkilerini, derin devlet ve iç dinamiklerin rolünü inceleyerek, mevcut uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerine katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bulgular, liderlerin risk alma eğilimleri, ideolojik inançları ve psikolojik motivasyonlarının dış politika kararlarını nasıl etkilediğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, rejim tiplerinin, dış politika kararlarının şeffaflığı ve risk düzeyini nasıl etkilediği üzerinde durulmuştur. Derin devlet ve iç dinamikler, devletlerin dış politika stratejilerini önemli ölçüde etkileyebilir ve bu yapıların rolü, devletlerin uluslararası ilişkilerdeki davranışlarını anlamada kritik bir öneme sahiptir. Çalışma, liderlerin psikolojik profillerinin, derin devletin rolünün ve iç dinamiklerin dış politika üzerindeki etkilerini daha derinlemesine incelemenin gerekliliğini vurgular ve uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin bu faktörleri daha kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alması gerektiğini belirtir.

Keywords

• Liderlerin Etkisi
• Rejim Tipleri
• İç Dinamikler
• Dış Politika

References

1. Bamford, J. (2001). Body of secrets: Anatomy of the ultra-secret National Security Agency. Toronto: Anchor Books.
2. Berkowitz, M. (2021). The language of apocalypse: Cultural and historical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Boyer, P. S. (1992). When time shall be no more: Prophecy belief in modern American culture. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
4. Brown, H. (1989). The rise and fall of the Catholic Church: A history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Burns, J. M. (1956). Roosevelt: The soldier of freedom (1940-1945). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
7. Cohen, R. (2004). The state and the deep state. In Deep state: A dark side of democracy (pp. 1-18). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
8. Collins, J. J. (2000). The apocalyptic imagination: An introduction to Jewish apocalyptic literature. Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing.

9. Daalder, I., & Lindsay, J. M. (2003). America unbound: The Bush revolution in foreign policy. Washington, District of Columbia: Brookings Institution Press.
10. Doyle, M. W. (1986). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960861
11. Dunne, T. (2008). Inventing international society: A history of the English school. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international conflict. The American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577-592. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944795
13. Friedman, L. (2016). Apocalyptic narratives in modern cinema. Milton: Routledge.
14. Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The cold war: A new history. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
15. Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.115
16. Gürbüz, A. (2013). Derin devlet ve güvenlik politikaları. Uluslararası Güvenlik Çalışmaları, 14(2), 65-82.
17. Guy, J. (1990). Tudor England. Walton Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Heper, M. (2007). Türk siyasal hayatında devlet ve toplum. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
19. Hermann, M. G. (1980). Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 7-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600126
20. Hermann, M. G. (2001a). Assessing leadership style: A trait analysis. In S. J. L. P. Williams & S. F. G. Williams (Eds.), Political leadership and institutions (pp. 17-31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Hermann, M. G. (2001b). How decision units shape foreign policy: A theoretical framework. International Studies Review, 3(2), 47-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00235
22. Hudson, V. M. (2005). Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of human nature. In J. A. Vasquez (Ed.), The state of the international relations theory (pp. 59-78). London: Routledge.
23. Ikenberry, G. J. (2009). Liberal leviathan: The origins, crisis, and transformation of the American world order. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
24. Johnson, P. (2018). Cinematic visions of the apocalypse: From fear to fascination. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Kamen, H. (2005). The Habsburg empire: A new history. Hamburg: HarperCollins.
26. Kershaw, I. (1998). Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
27. Kuran, T. (2010). The long divergence: How Islamic law held back the Middle East. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
28. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Makovsky, D., & Ross, D. (2019). Be strong and of good courage: How Israel's most important leaders shaped its destiny. New York, NY: PublicAffairs Hachette Book Group
30. Mankoff, J. (2012). Russian foreign policy: The return of great power politics. Massachusetts: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
31. Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
32. Morris, J. (2011). The authoritarian state: A historical perspective. Political Science Review, 19(3), 123-145.
33. Murphy, F. (2012). The rhetoric of apocalypse: A study of narrative destruction. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
34. Owen, J. M. (1994). How liberalism produces democratic peace. International Security, 19(2), 87-125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539197
35. Özbudun, E. (2000). Türkiye'de derin devletin rolü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 35-50.
36. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027697
37. Roberts, A. (2003). Napoleon and Wellington: The long duel. Belgrade: Phoenix Press.
38. Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. New York City, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
39. Russett, B. M. (1993). Grasping the democratic peace: Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
40. Shambaugh, D. (2016). China’s future. Sausalito, California: Polipoint.
41. Sprout, H., & Sprout, M. (1957). The ecological perspective on human behavior. In A. L. George (Ed.), International politics: A framework for analysis (pp. 37-56). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
42. Svolik, M. W. (2012). The politics of authoritarian rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Takeyh, R. (2009). Guardians of the revolution: Iran and the world in the age of the Ayatollahs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
45. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
46. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
47. Weber, T. P. (2004). On the road to Armageddon: How evangelicals became Israel's best friend. Ada, Michigan: Baker Academic.
48. Weeks, J. L. (2012). Strongmen and straw men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 326-347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000111