No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Introduction by guest editor: IR/foreign policy theory and German foreign policy
... On the one hand, within foreign policy strategy, according to H. Maul, image positioning is considerable more successfully, than in post-war Germany -thanks to the international conditions and other states, first of all the USA, but multilateralism and antipathy to military operations were decisive [19]. On the other hand, G. Hellmann claims that the internal image of Civilian Power is "myth" now, and the prestige and the status identifies as the defining factors in now "energetic" foreign policy [20]. Remaining "conciliatory", according to G. Feldman, the foreign policy of Germany faces calls from allies for increases in fighting [21] that causes discontent of the German electorate which sees advantages generally through trade and investments at evasion from physical risks (exceptions as Kosovo, incited a bigger contradiction). ...
In the article a comparative analysis of the international branding of armed forces is executed. The examples of effective national branding are given. Marketing technologies of defensive branch branding and formation of military culture are explored. Social media as a key instrument in the strategy of branding of defensive branch are considered. The Russian national branding of innovations in defense industry complex is analyzed. The successful Russian national brands in defense field are shown. The way of international collaboration strengthening in dual technologies in chemical and mechanical engineering, material science, nanotechnologies sphere is offered.
... Yet the process of growing IR into a more in-touch and insightful field has also been producing an unanticipated effect: it is turning many of the new topic areas or subfields into self-referential camps that push out or sideline topics, writings, scholars, and journals that do not fit particularistic codas. It is a trend that has been noted by several analysts of IR as a field (e.g. Hellmann, 2009; Kornprobst, 2009; Waever, 2010). My argument in 2007 and continuing into the present is that the smoke from proliferating IR campfires makes it increasingly difficult to see even friendly neighboring camps, let alone those pitched purposely at a remove. ...
Having raised the question of whither the international at the end of International Relations a few years ago, this article treats the state of International Relations theory as a continuing endist issue for discussion. Of interest is the restructuring of the field in the post-Cold War years, partly as a result of debates about epistemologies and partly in light of the failure of realisms to lead International Relations to the door of the Soviet and Eastern Bloc collapse, which many thought it could. As the world globalized, so did International Relations, turning itself into a field of differences — theoretical, geographical, philosophical, methodological, and so on. Is this the end of International Relations or its new afterlife? I argue that there are signs that old topics of International Relations, like war, are being taken up in new ways and in new collaborations, such as those that feminist International Relations has forged. At the same time, many camps display the old International Relations tendency to elevate abstract thinking above quotidian international relations, even in the face of clear evidence that the agency of people played a major role in shifting Cold War and Middle East configurations of power. International Relations’ camps should strive less for their own distinctive analysis and more for communication with colleagues, ordinary people making today’s international relations and policy proponents.
National image is a vital political consideration for the Federal Republic of Germany. In the global era, negative perceptions of Germany have been surpassed by evidence supporting that it rates among a select group of most admired countries, a standing attributable to state and non-state influences. A positive image has been sustained despite resonances of history, contradictory demands of EU leadership, and other domestic and international pressures arising from the migration crisis, the policies of Putin, and the election of Trump.
In one of the few genuinely theoretical contributions to the study of foreign policy, James Rosenau (1987) has called for its country-specific theorization. If foreign policy is to differ from international theory at all, it must do so by refusing to gloss over the particularities of the foreign policies of individual states. Where international theory can afford to focus on ‘broader systemic patterns’, foreign policy theory collects the windfall. It gains its distinctive character by shedding light on the complex enmeshment of foreign policy processes in historical, cultural and institutional factors, which are in no small part peculiar to the specific state under scrutiny. Against this background, Rosenau’s injunction seems almost self-evident. Yet, even if we were in possession of a number of foreign policy theories approximating the number of sovereign states this would leave us in a state of dissatisfaction, if these individual theories remained unconnected. Theorizing the foreign policy of individual states seems to be at the same time necessary and insufficient, for any account of a state’s foreign policy involves at least an implicit conception of its (global) environment. How exactly the global environment is understood, however, crucially shapes the possibilities of foreign policy theory. Foreign policy understood to take place in an international system of states equipped with asymmetric material capabilities will look vastly different from a foreign policy understood to take place in a post-national constellation characterized by the struggle for supranational forms of constitutionalization, or a functionally differentiated world society where the autopoietic closure of function systems operating on a global level makes a state-centric focus appear atavistic.
Kristensen, Peter M. (2012) Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations. International Studies Review, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2012.01101.x
International Relations (IR) has cultivated an image as a discipline with strong divisions along paradigmatic, methodological, metatheoretical, geographical, and other lines. This article questions that image analyzing the latent structures of communication in IR. It uses citation data from more than 20,000 articles published in 59 IR journals to construct a network among IR journals and finds a discipline with a center consisting of pedigreed IR journals, albeit closely related to political science. Divisions are identifiable as specialty areas that form clusters of specialized journals along the periphery of the network—security studies and international political economy in particular—but communication is also divided along the lines of geography and policy/theory. The article concludes that divisions notwithstanding, IR communication remains centered around American, general, and theoretical IR journals and that to practice this particular kind of communication is an important dimension of being an IR scholar.
This paper is concerned with Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) and non-state actors. Globalisation has brought non-state actors back on the agenda of International Relations. As a result of globalisation, we witness at least some shift of authority from the state to non-state actors (the extent of which remains debated). Although most of the empirical studies focus on ‘domestic’ issues, there are good reasons to assume that foreign policy is equally affected by this trend. Not only are non-state actors autonomous actors in world politics, they are also increasingly involved in the making of states’ foreign policies. Following a discussion of the role of non-state actors in foreign policy, we ask to what extent FPA, IR’s actor-centric sub-field, has taken into account this growing importance of non-state actors. Given FPA’s criticism of seeing the state as a unitary actor, one would expect FPA scholars to be among the first within IR to analyse decision making involving non-state actors. A closer look however reveals that FPA remains focused mainly on state actors, while ignoring private, transnational and international ones. Thus, FPA remains in some way state-centric. We close with an outline of possible directions for further FPA research.
Contents:
- Multiple Actors in World Politics: An Attempt at Systematisation
- NSAs, ‘Rival Actorness’ and Hybrid Foreign Policymaking
- Non-state Actors and the FPA ‘Toolkit’
- The Methods of FPA — Suited for NSAs?
- NSAs and FPA Research: Centre Stage or on the Fringes?
- FPA 2.0: Studying Complex Foreign Policymaking in a Globalised World
Drawing upon philosophy and social theory, Social Theory of International Politics develops a theory of the international system as a social construction. Alexander Wendt clarifies the central claims of the constructivist approach, presenting a structural and idealist worldview which contrasts with the individualism and materialism which underpins much mainstream international relations theory. He builds a cultural theory of international politics, which takes whether states view each other as enemies, rivals or friends as a fundamental determinant. Wendt characterises these roles as 'cultures of anarchy', described as Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian respectively. These cultures are shared ideas which help shape state interests and capabilities, and generate tendencies in the international system. The book describes four factors which can drive structural change from one culture to another - interdependence, common fate, homogenization, and self-restraint - and examines the effects of capitalism and democracy in the emergence of a Kantian culture in the West.
Academic journals play a key role in the dissemination of scholarly knowledge in the social sciences. Hence, publication in journals is critical evidence of scholarly performance for both individuals and the departments that they populate. While in the best of worlds each scholar's performance would be evaluated based on a close reading of his/her published journal articles, in the actual practices of hiring, tenure and promotion review, and departmental evaluations this ideal is often honored only in the breach. Instead, evaluators commonly base their judgments of the importance and quality of published articles, at least in part, on the journals in which they appear. The higher the status accorded a journal, the greater the weight attached to publications appearing in it.
This chapter examines how actors and structures make foreign policy an extremely complicated field of study and how, in view of this complexity, these actors and structures have been treated in the literature on foreign policy analysis. It first provides a historical background on the field of foreign policy before discussing the role of actors and structures in ‘process’ and ‘policy’ approaches to foreign policy. In particular, it describes approaches to foreign policy based on a structural perspective, namely: realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and social constructivism. It then considers evaluates approaches from an actor-based perspective: cognitive and psychological approaches, bureaucratic politics approach, new liberalism, and interpretative actor perspective. The chapter also looks at the agency–structure problem and asks whether an integrated framework is feasible before concluding with a recommendation of how to resolve the former in terms of a constructive answer to the latter.
The authors want to express here their firm conviction that a field such as international politics is not just a hodge-podge of ideas that in the past for one reason or another have been shoved under the same tent. It is rather a set of empirical problems, meaningfully related and having very specific, researchable referents. These problems, regardless of their origin, must be analyzed with tools appropriate to the enterprise. To that end we have found it necessary to manufacture our own scheme of analysis by drawing heavily on the works and methods of scholars not normally consulted by political scientists. We have documented these sources in the hope that others may find them useful. We have had to employ words and concepts that may appear strange to the reader.
Kenneth Waltz's recent book, Theory of International Politics, is one of the most important contributions to international relations theory since his Man, the State and War. It picks up where the earlier work left off: with the structure of the international system serving as the basis for explaining a variety of international outcomes. The most profound and perhaps the most perplexing outcome Waltz attempts to explain is the lack of fundamental change in the international polity. The author argues that Waltz does not fully succeed in this endeavor for three reasons. First, his definition of structure fails to capture so momentous a change as that from the medieval to the modern international systems. Second, his application of the structuralist method leads him to ask questions in such a way that the answers systematically understate the degree of potential change in the contemporary international system. Third, his model of structural explanation turns out to allow only for a reproductive logic but not for a transformational logic. With the epistemological underpinnings of his theory thus biased against the possibility of change, it is not surprising that Waltz finds the likelihood of future continuity compelling. In the spirit of constructive criticism, this review article tries to amend and augment the theory in a manner that is not incompatible with its basic realist precepts.
This article explains some of the recent changes in German foreign policy, namely the shift in preferences for institution building in the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The empirical exploration compares the phase before the European Union's (EU) Intergovernmental Conference in the mid-1990s with the Convention negotiations in 2002/2003. While the German government used to be a strong defender of NATO's primacy and supported a modest scope for the EU, it then began to promote high-intensity crisis management for ESDP and wanted to see the EU on an equal footing with NATO. Building on neoclassical realist thought, the paper argues that a two-stage analysis of the power context offers a comprehensive explanation of these changes. It refers to power in a materialist sense and its cognitive understanding on behalf of the political actors. Based on the assessment of uncertainty stemming from its interpretation of the power context, the German government formed its preferences on what the EU's responsibilities for European security should be and how it should relate to NATO. More specifically, the mixture of isolationist and unilateralist signals sent by the United States increased German concerns about the latter's commitment. The German government adapted to the uncertain power context by promoting stronger responsibilities for ESDP.Journal of International Relations and Development (2009) 12, 317-348. doi:10.1057/jird.2009.15
Examining the history, conceptual breadth, and recent trends in the study of foreign policy analysis, it is clear that this subfield provides what may be the best conceptual connection to the empirical ground upon which all international relations (IR) theory is based. Foreign policy analysis 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. FPA offers significant contributions to IR—theoretical, substantive, and methodological—and is situated at the intersection of all social science and policy fields as they relate to international affairs. A renewed emphasis on actor-specific theory will allow IR to more fully reclaim its ability to manifest human agency, with its attendant change, creativity, accountability, and meaning.
The foreign image policy of states, that is their efforts to influence how they are seen by foreign publics, is an under-researched aspect of International Relations (IR) and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). This is wrong, argues this article. As foreign image policy reflects states' self-understandings, its examination provides inside insights into the transformation of states. The analysis of the foreign image policy of Germany brings to light a remarkable transformation. Until the mid-1990s, Germany cared about its image mostly for security reasons and used traditional instruments of foreign cultural policy for its image projection. Since the mid-1990s, its image policy pursues commercial goals — promoting the Standort — and for this purpose relies on public relations and marketing instruments such as the ‘Land of Ideas’ nation-branding campaign. This new policy has been enabled by the globalization discourse and its construction of a ‘global competition’ between ‘competition states’. At the same time, Germany's new foreign image policy re-produces the globalization discourse and its key concepts. Foreign image policy and globalization are mutually re-enforcing. This interconnectedness with the globalization discourse points to the wider significance of foreign image policy. Therefore, research along these lines carries the promise of bringing FPA back into the agenda of IR.Journal of International Relations and Development (2009) 12, 293–316. doi:10.1057/jird.2009.12
After unification in 1990, German foreign policy has received unprecedented attention from the most prominent journals of International Relations (IR) theory. This paper argues that this was due largely to the function which the German ‘case’ served in the discourse of IR/foreign policy theory. Realists as well as liberals and constructivists were heavily enticed by it since it seemed an excellent case for all of them to prove the worth of their theories. In doing so, however, the subsumtionist logic applied did not only foster identical exclusionist theoretical claims. It also cultivated a systematicity view of thought and action which was wholly unreceptive for potentially novel foreign policy practices to appear. The paper documents and critiques these trends as a typical phenomenon of a paradigmatic discipline. It then outlines an alternative pragmatist approach to foreign policy analysis which emphasizes the contingency and situated creativity of social action. It is argued, in particular, that this approach provides for a more adequate description of the changes which German foreign policy has undergone. Moreover, by drawing on the insights of allegedly incommensurable paradigms and by systematically integrating the inherent contingency of social action, it also shows how a logic of reconstruction can open up avenues for cross-paradigmatic dialogue.Journal of International Relations and Development (2009) 12, 257–292. doi:10.1057/jird.2009.11
One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries’, Institute for the Theory and Practices of International Relations, College of William and Mary
- Richard Jordan
- Daniel Maliniak
- Amy Oakes
- Susan Peterson
- Michael Tierney
Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics Foreign Policy Decision-Making
- Richard C Snyder
- H W Bruck
- Valerie Hudson
- Derek H Chollet
- James M Goldgeier
Toward Single-Country Theories of Foreign Policy: The Case of the USSR
- James N Rosenau
- JamesN Rosenau
Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy Theory: The case of Germany and Europe
- Ole Wæver