HOW TO STUDY FOREIGN POLITICS: SYSTEMIC CONSTRAINTS vs. DOMESTIC POLITICS and DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE

Abstract

How are foreign policies made? Who makes foreign policies and implements them? How does international or domestic structure influence foreign policymaking? Do preferences of leaders influence foreign policy decisions more than other factors? If yes, to what extent? These are important questions and one can find as many different answers to these questions as the number of people in the field. While some have argued that the systemic factors constrain or facilitate the behaviour of a government, others have maintained that domestic structure frames how a government is going to act in foreign policy matters. Still others have made the claim that leadership ‘matters’ in foreign policymaking and a leader’s orientation suggests how he or she is going to handle his or her state’s foreign policies, regardless of constraints systemic or domestic structures present. The aim of this paper, which is mainly concerned with the problems of systemic-structural analysis of foreign policymaking, is to make a case that domestic factors and decision-making structures should not only be taken into consideration in foreign policy analysis but they should be given a primary place in the literature.

References

1. 1 Brecher, Michael, The Foreign Policy System of Israel, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1972; Caporaso, James A., ‘Across the Great Divide: Integrating Comparative and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 563-592, 1997; Dassell, Kurt, ‘Civilian, Soldiers and Strife’, International Security, Vol. 23, 1998, pp. 107-140; Duffield, John S., ‘Political Culture and State Behaviour: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism’, International Organization, Vol. 53, 1999, pp. 765-803; Hagan, Joe D., ‘Domestic Political Explanations in the Analysis of Foreign Policy’, in Neack, Laura, Hey, Jeanne A.K. and Haney, Patrick J. (eds.), Foreign Policy Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1995; Hermann, Gunther, ‘Goodbye Bismarck? The Foreign Policy of Contemporary Germany’, Mershon International Studies Review Vol. 40, 1996, pp. 1-39; Hermann Margaret G. and Hermann, Charles F., ‘Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: an Empirical Inquiry’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, 1989, pp. 361-387; Hermann Margaret G. and Hagan, Joe D., ‘International Decision-Making: Leadership Matters’, Foreign Policy, Vol. 10, 1998, pp. 124-137; Hermann, Margaret G. and Kegley, Charles W., ‘Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, 1995, pp. 511-533; Kaarbo, Juliet, ‘Power and Influence in Foreign Policy Decision-Making: the Role of Junior Coalition Partners in Germany and Israeli Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, 1996, pp. 510-530; Kaarbo, Juliet and Hermann, Margaret G., ‘Leadership Styles of Prime Ministers: How Do Individual Differences Affect the Foreign Policymaking Process’, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9, 1998, pp. 243-263; Kupchan, Charles A., The Vulnerability of Empire, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1994; Putnam, Robert, ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games’, International Organization, Vol. 42, 1988, pp. 427-460; Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘Transnational Advocacy Networks, Human Rights and Democracy in Latin America’, paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, 29 August-1 September 1996; Stern, Eric K., ‘Crisis Decision-Making: a Cognitive-Institutional Approach’, University of Stockholm Studies in Politics, Vol. 66, 1999.
2. 2 Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace, sixth edition, 1985, revised by Kenneth Thompson, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
3. 3 Kaplan, Morton. A., System and Process in International Politics, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1957; Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press, 1979; Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
4. 4 Mearsheimer, John J., ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War’, International Security, Vol. 15, 1990.
5. 5 Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
6. 6 Rosenau, James N., The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy, New York: Free Press, 1971; Doyle, Michael W., ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs’, 1986 in Brown, Michael E., Lynn-Jones, Sean M. and Miller, Steven E. (eds.), Debating the Democratic Peace, MIT Press, 1997; Russett, Bruce, The Fact of Democratic Peace, ibid., 1993.
7. 7 Hagan, 1995.
8. 8 Brecher, 1972; Dassell, 1998.

9. 9 Hellman, 1996.
10. 10 Duffield, 1996; Kupchan, 1994.
11. 11 Hermann & Hermann 1989; Hermann & Hagan 1998; Hermann & Kegley 1995; Kaarbo & Hermann 1996.
12. 12 Hagan, 1994, p. 125.
13. 13 Caporaso, 1997, p. 567.
14. 14 Doyle, 1986; Russett, 1993.
15. 15 Brecher, 1972.
16. 16 Kupchan, 1994.
17. 17 Kaarbo & Hermann, 1998.
18. 18 Hermann & Hermann, 1989.
19. 19 Hermann & Hagan, 1998.
20. 20 Hermann, Charles F., ‘Avoiding Pathologies in Foreign Policy Decision Groups’, in Caldwell, Dan and McKeown, Timothy J. (eds.), Diplomacy, Force and Leadership: Essays in Honour of Alexander George, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993.
21. 21 Çuhadar, Esra, ‘Turkish-EU Negotiations: a Two-Level Game’, unpublished paper, 2001.
22. 22 Hudson, Valerie M., Hermann, Charles F. & Singer, Eric. 1989. The Situational Imperative: A Predictive Model of Foreign Policy Behaviour, in Cooperation and Conflict 24: 117-139