Foreign Policy in a Constructed World

Full text

FOREIGN
POLICY
IN
A
CONSTRUCTED
WORLD

International
Relations
in
a
Constructed
World
International Relations
in
a Constructed World
Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas
Onuf
and
Paul Kowert, editors
Commonsense Constructivism,
or
The Making
of
World Affairs
Ralph Pettman
Constructing International Relations:
The Next Generation
Karin M Fierke
and
Knud
Erik Jorgensen, editors
Foreign Policy in a Constructed World
Vendulka Kubalkova, editor
Series
Editors
Vendulka Kubalkova, University
of
Miami
Nicholas Onuf, Florida International University
Ralph Pettman, Victoria University
of
Wellington
Editorial
Advisory
Board
Emanuel Adler, Hebrew University
of
Jerusalem
David Blaney, Maca/ester College
Kurt Burch, University
of
Delaware
Stuart Corbridge, University
of
Miami
Fran9ois Debrix, Florida International University
Gavan Duffy, Syracuse University
Karin Fierke, Queen's University
of
Belfast
Rodney Hall, University
of
Iowa
Ted Hopf, Ohio State University
Paul Kowert, Florida International University
Lily Ling, Institute
of
Social Studies, The Hague
Cecelia Lynch, University
of
California, Irvine
Elisabeth Priigl, Florida International University
Wayne Sandholtz, University
of
California, Irvine
Jutta Weldes, Bristol University

FOREIGN
POLICY
IN
A
CONSTRUCTED
WORLD
VENDULKA
KUBALKOVA
EDITOR
I~
~~o~;~~n~~~up
LONDON
AND
NEW
YORK
~~o~;~~n~~~up

First published
200
I by
M.E.
Sharpe
Published
2015
by
Routledge
2
Park
Square,
Milton
Park,
Abingdon,
Oxon
OX14
4RN
711
Third
Avenue,
NewY01k,NY
10017,
USA
Routledge
is
an
imprint
of
the
Taylor
&
Francis
Group,
an
informa
business
Copyright©
200
I
Taylor
&
Francis.
All
rights reserved
No part
of
this book
may
be
reprinted
or reproduced or
utilised
in
any
form
or
by
any
electronic,
mechanical,
or other
means,
now
known or hereafter
invented,
including
photocopying
and
recording,
or in
any
information
storage
or
retrieval
system,
without
permission in
writing
from
the
publishers.
Notices
No responsibility
is
assumed
by
the
publisher
for
any
injwy and/or
damage
to
persons
or
property
as
a matter
of
products
liability,
negligence
or
otherwise,
or
from
any
use
of
operation
of
any
methods,
products,
instructions
or
ideas
contained in the
material
herein.
Practitioners
and
researchers must
always
rely
on
their own experience
and
knowledge
in
evaluating
and
using
any
information,
methods,
compounds,
or
experiments
described
herein.
In
using
such
information
or
methods
they should
be
mindful
of
their
own
safety
and
the
safety
of
others,
including
parties
for
whom they
have
a
professional
responsibility.
Product or
corporate
names
may
be
trademarl<s
or
registered
trademarks,
and
are
used
only
for
identification and
explanation
without
intent
to
infringe.
Library
of
Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Foreign policy
in
a constructed world
I
by
Vendulka
Kubalkova,
editor.
p.
em.
-(International relations in a constructed world)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7656-0787-5 (cloth:
alk.
paper)-
ISBN 0-7656-0788-3
(pbk.:
alk.
paper)
I.
International relations--Philosophy.
2.
Constructivism
(Philosophy)
I.
Kubillkova,
V.
II.
Series.
JZ1242
.F675
2001
327.1
'Ol---<lc21
ISBN
13:
9780765607881
(pbk)
ISBN
13:
9780765607874
(hbk)
2001034490
CIP

For Nicholas
Onuf

This
page
intentionally left
blank

Contents
List
of
Tables and Figures ix
Introduction
Vendulka
Kubalkowi
3
Part I. Frameworks
1.
Foreign Policy, International Politics, and Constructivism
Vendulka
Kubalkova
15
2.
Foreign Policy Is What States
Make
of
It:
Social
Construction and
International Relations Theory
Steve Smith 38
3. A Constructivist Primer
Vendulka
Kubalkova
4.
Speaking
of
Policy
Nicholas
Onuf
Part II. Constructivists at Work
5.
Soviet "New Thinking" and the End
of
the Cold
War:
Five
Explanations
56
77
Vendulka
Kubalkova
99
6.
Thus
Spoke
Franco: The Place
of
History in the Making
of
Foreign Policy
Gonzalo Parcel Quero 146
vii

viii CONTENTS
7.
Failed Policy: Analyzing Inter-American Anticorruption Programs
Michael W Collier 173
8. Making Sense
of
the Conflict Between Mainland China and Taiwan
Shiping Zheng 203
9.
Identity and Foreign Policy: The Case
oflslam
in U.S. Foreign
Policy
Nizar Messari
Part
III.
Reflections
10. Commonsense Constructivism and Foreign Policy: A Critique
of
Rule-Oriented Constructivism
227
Ralph Pettman 249
11. Toward a Constructivist Theory
of
Foreign Policy
Paul
A.
Kowert 266
About the Editor and Contributors 289
Index 293

List
of
Tables and Figures
Tables
1.1
Questions Asked by
FP,
IP,
and Constructivists
24
3.1
Seeing Like a Constructivist (Constructivist Ontology
I)
61
3.2 Constructivist Synoptic Table
67
3.3 Translating into Constructivist Categories the Established
Discourses: IP/FP
72
5
.1
Questions Asked by
FP,
IP,
and Constructivists 1 04
5.2 Neoliberal Institutionalism and Soft/Moderate Constructivism
Compared
122
7.1
The Incidence and Evaluation
of
Corrupt Behavior
182
7.2 Corruption in the Americas
184
7.3 OAS Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
187
7.4 Coordinates
of
Corruption
196
Figures
I.1
Three Approaches
to
IR
1.1
Foreign Policy and International Politics
1.2
Intellectual Influences on FPIIP
1.3
Agency and Structure and IP/FP Split
2.1
Locating IR Theories
3.1
Language in Positivism and in Constructivism
3.2 Thinking Like a Constructivist (Constructivist Ontology
II)
Boxes
6.1
Evolution
of
Spanish Foreign Policy in Franco's Spain
4
16
20
21
41
64
65
163
ix

This
page
intentionally left
blank

FOREIGN
POLICY
IN
A
CONSTRUCTED
WORLD

This
page
intentionally left
blank

Introduction
Vendulka Kubalkova
I first came into contact with constructivism in 1995 when faculty and graduate
students at Florida International University and University
of
Miami formed
a continuing seminar called the Miami International Relations Group. Among
the group's founding members was Nicholas Onuf, whose
World
of
Our
Making (1989) helped to bring into focus the processes
of
social construc-
tion in the field
of
International Relations (IR).
1
When we established the Miami IR Group, constructivism was still very
much on the margins
of
the field.
It
was misunderstood and frequently con-
fused with the poststructuralist/postmodern preoccupation with textual
deconstruction. Since then, constructivism has gained considerable popular-
ity in
IR
and in other fields, in the United States and other countries.
Constructivism is now literally everywhere: in literary theory, sociology,
communications, anthropology, and feminist studies to name but a few fields.
In Britain, constructivism----or constitutivism, as it is sometimes called
there--
has also excited a great deal
of
attention (Smith 1996, 26-27). British schol-
ars are rediscovering in E.H. Carr and Hedley Bull an emphasis on interna-
tional society that they identity as constructivist in character. Constructivist
scholarship in European countries is also sharply on the increase ( cf. Fierke
and Jargensen 2001).
The
meteoric
rise
has
culminated
in
the
sudden
recognition
of
constructivism
by
mainstream IR scholars. In journals surveying the state
of
the art in the field in the late
1990s_
constructivism is prominently men-
tioned (e.g., Katzenstein, Keohane, and Krasner, 1998). In one such survey
article, there is even a picture drawn
of
three Doric pillars on which the
study
ofiR
allegedly rests (Figure
I.l).
Constructivism is one
of
these three
pillars, along with realism and liberalism. Why this sudden fame? After all,
IR constructivism is only into its second decade, merely in its teens, a mere
3

4 FOREIGN
POLICY
IN
A CONSTRUCTED
WORLD
Figure
1.1
Three
Approaches
to
IR (based
on
Walt 1998, 38)
Competing
Paradigms
moment compared to the two millennia that,
by
pointing to Thucydides,
re-
alism, the main approach to IR, claims for its genealogy. Furthermore, as the
third approach to IR, constructivism
is
portrayed as a successor to the "radi-
cal," that is, the mainly Marxist-derived traditions (Walt 1998) with equally
distinguished genealogy.
Despite the increasing interest in constructivism and a growing body
of
lit-
erature on the subject, my graduate students keep asking the same questions:
•
"How
can I use constructivism in
my
research?"
•
"How
do I write a constructivist
dissertation?"
•
"If
I am interested in identity, culture, religion, or other 'ideational'
aspects
of
international relations, does it mean that I
am-or
I have to
be---a constructivist?"
• "How else, without necessarily focusing on identity and culture, do I be-
come a
constructivist?"
• "How do I know a constructivist when I see
one?"
• "What
is
constructivism and why is it suddenly so
important?"
Onuf's
World
of
Our
Making
is
difficult to read; so, for that matter, is Friedrich
Kratochwil 's
Rules, Norms and Decisions (
1989), which
is
also a key text for

INTRODUCTION 5
constructivism, and Alexander Wendt's
Social
Theory
of
International Politics
( 1999), which is the latest general treatment
of
the subject. Why is it that
constructivism is apparently so difficult? On closer scrutiny some forms
of
constructivism are quite simple, despite the technically difficult idiom charac-
teristic
of
all constructivists. Some are more difficult to grasp. Some, despite
their difficult idiom, propose only cosmetic changes to well-established ap-
proaches. Some, particularly the form
of
constructivism on which this book
focuses, the
"rule-oriented"
constructivism that
Onuf
introduced in 1989 and
then refined as a Miami IR Group
member/
requires a rethinking
of
how so-
cial scientists see and understand the world. However,
if
students are first ex-
posed to this form
of
constructivism without prior training in positivist social
science, they do not fmd it very difficult. In fact, in many regards, constructivism
is closer to common sense than the mainstream approaches.
About This Book
This book is part
of
a series entitled "International Relations in a Constructed
World," inspired
by
the book
of
the same name (Kubalkova, Onuf, and Kowert
1998) and reflecting the work
of
the Miami IR Group over the first two
years
of
its existence.
It
is meant to build on its predecessor while taking
into account the critical comments made
by
readers and reviewers.
We
have
tried to strengthen three important aspects
of
the book: first, its pedagogical
purpose and accessibility to students and lay audience; second, the discus-
sion
of
more than one form
of
constructivism; and, third, attention to em-
pirical case studies.
The Pedagogical Purpose
of
This Volume
First
of
all, there still does not exist a constructivist primer written specifically
with upper-division undergraduate and new graduate students in mind, although
our 1998 book has gone some way to filling that gap. The rationale
of
this
volume is primarily pedagogical. I stress this point as a justification for the
inevitable simplifications that certainly characterize my contribution to this
volume, chapters
1,
3, and
5.
These three chapters are closely interconnected,
each providing a framework for the other. I pack into chapter 1 a summary
of
an enormous amount
of
scholarly writing regarding evolution
of
the split be-
tween Foreign
Policy
Analysis and International Relations studied as a sys-
tem. In 1961, David Singer formulated this split
as
the "levels
of
analysis"
problem. Each
of
these two levels--the behavioral and the
systemic-starts
from different premises, calls on different methods
of
analysis, and yields
propositions altogether different in scale. Scholars working at the behavioral

6 FOREIGN
POUCY
IN
A CONSTRUCTED
WORLD
level typically focus on foreign policy decision makers, and their work is
readily identified as Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). Scholars working at the
systemic level focus on the relation between states as a political system, but
no single label has stuck to their work. For convenience, I have called them
International Politics (IP). There are literally hundreds
of
volumes, entire
libraries, devoted to FPA and just as many devoted to IP (or to
IR
where this
is presumed to consist wholly
of
IP). The purpose
of
my chapter is not to
replace the massive literature on these subjects, but to set the stage for one
of
the main constructivist claims
of
this book--namely, that the distinction be-
tween foreign policy analysis and IR studied as a system is artificial, that it
can and should
be
eliminated, and that one
of
the
important roles
of
constructivism is its assistance in this elimination process.
Chapter 1 is so thickly packed with definitions that
if
they were in alpha-
betic order, the chapter could pass for a glossary. Because it covers so much
material, it might require some background or, as
my
students confirmed,
repeated reading. In contrast to chapter
1,
chapter 3 certainly does not need
much
of
a background. Entitled "A Constructivist Primer," it takes nothing
for granted, using metaphors, stories, and a multitude
of
tables to explain
constructivism and how to go about using it for research. Chapter 5, the third
of
the three pedagogically motivated chapters, is a case study for both chap-
ters 1 and 3. I have concluded that in a book written for students it is incum-
bent upon me not only to outline the various frameworks, but also to show in
practical examples how they work. I take one particular case, Gorbachev's
"new thinking," and using the frameworks I set out in chapters 1 and 3, I
subject ''new thinking" to a number
of
different approaches, both constructivist
and nonconstructivist.
Throughout this part
of
the text I draw on insights gained from teaching
constructivism, from the countless useful comments students made on early
drafts
of
these chapters, from the work
of
my
colleagues in the Miami IR Group,
and from its student members--who have used constructivism in their empiri-
cal work, in this volume, and elsewhere. However, I alone take the responsibil-
ity for the simplifications to which some
of
my colleagues might object. I am
happy to accept the blame, since I am convinced
of
constructivism's tremen-
dous potential for IR studies and think it is important that it becomes accessible
to more than an exclusive group
of
academic cognoscenti.
Different Forms
of
Constructivism
The second lesson we have learned from the reception
ofthe
1998 book was
that, for example, according to a review in American Political Science Re-
view,3
we have apparently not paid enough attention to distinctions among

INTRODUCTION 7
the various forms
of
constructivism and particularly their relation
to
the main-
stream form
of
constructivism. When we worked
on
our first volume, inter-
est in constructivism had only
just
started to pick up.
It
was
by
no means
clear at that time that mainstream scholars would undergo a change
of
heart
in this regard, and that constructivism would become one
of
the main IR
approaches. Now that constructivism has caught on, we have tried to correct
the problem identified above.
There are chapters at the beginning (e.g., chapter 2) and at the end (e.g.,
chapter
11)
that deal with the constructivism
of
its
most visible contemporary
proponent, Alexander Wendt. Throughout the volume, particularly in chapters
1 and 5, there are references to other forms
of
constructivism, as well.
Case Studies
Third, case studies in our first volume, some critics averred, were not always
found convincing in demonstrating constructivist precepts and strengths. I
have already explained that chapter 3,
"A
Constructivist Primer," has been
written specifically for the student who is choosing a research topic and
looking for a framework to use. Chapter 3 assumes no prior knowledge
of
constructivism.
It
seeks
to
facilitate
students'
first
encounters
with
constructivism and to show even the least theoretically inclined
of
them the
empirical possibilities
of
"rule-oriented" constructivism. The four steps that
I use to structure the chapter make clear the points
of
difference among
constructivists, thus enabling students to make their choices more readily.
Not all chapters, however, have been written with students in mind. The
book is divided into three parts. Moving from Part I, "Frameworks," which
prepares the reader for the empirical work, to Part II, "Constructivists at
Work," the balance
of
theory and practice shifts in the direction
of
the latter.
We
can also see how constructivist premises inform different types
of
re-
search. In the process, not only do we come to see how constructivism sheds
light on specific "cases" or disciplines, but also how constructivism is itself
expanded beyond its original premises as a result
of
the healthy interaction
with other disciplines. This is possible because constructivists do not generally
feel that they need to remain within the boundaries
of
any given discipline. As
these boundaries become porous, new areas
of
inquiry are exposed.
Chapter 2 has been specially commissioned for this book by a leading
British
IR
theorist, Steve Smith. In his characteristically lucid way, Profes-
sor Smith explains some key terms and issues, complementing the introduc-
tory chapter
1.
He discusses the difference between rationalist and reflectivist
approaches, for example, and between explaining and understanding and
relevant terms
of
philosophy
of
science. He also deals with the question
of

8 FOREIGN POLICY
IN
A CONSTRUCTED WORLD
the relationship between constructivism and more mainstream IR approaches,
and the relationship between the different constructivisms. He singles out
for special attention the mainstream constructivist Alexander Wendt and the
Miami IR Group,
of
which most, but not all, contributors to this volume are
members. The title
of
Smith's chapter paraphrases Wendt's famous claim
that "anarchy is what states make
of
it." Smith uses the paraphrase "foreign
policy is what states make
of
it" to make two important points: first, that
mainstream constructivism, certainly in the form that Wendt presents it, can
make only a limited contribution to the study
of
foreign policy. The second
important point Smith makes goes to the heart
of
how we study IR, arguing
that the split between IP and FPA is an artificial and distorting one, and that
it ought to be overcome.
Chapter 4, Onuf's "Speaking
of
Policy," is theoretically the most demand-
ing
of
the entire volume and will no doubt be added to the collection
of
key
theoretical pieces elucidating and extending his initial constructivist state-
ment (1989). Despite its technical difficulty, its inclusion in this volume is
crucial in at least three respects. First, FPA is centered on the study
of
policy,
and yet the term "policy," argues Onuf, has been used very sloppily. Second,
Onuf uses speech act theory to show how agents interact strategically by
making policy statements. No rule-oriented constructivist could engage in
the study
of
FPA without this understanding. Finally,
Onuf
demonstrates the
point
made
in
chapters
1 and
3,
that is, the
virtue
of
rule-oriented
constructivism and its compatibility with a great deal
of
work produced by
scholars in other fields.
Onuf
disagrees with constructivists such as Martha
Finnemore who point out that with the realization that interests
of
states are
not given (and identical), the validity and utility
of
strategic interaction and
rational choice theory, the main model for understanding ofFPA,
is
under-
mined and can no longer be used (Finnemore 1996, ix).
Onuf
disagrees and,
on the contrary, gives both the game theory and the rational choice theory a
new lease on life by giving a constructivist spin to the key contributions
made
by
Thomas Schelling on the game theory and Jon Elster on the theory
of
rational choice.
The collection
of
case studies
of
Part II is a sampler
of
applications
of
a
constructivist approach to a range
of
topics. Each
of
the contributors selects
(defines and develops) his/her own approach. Nizar Messari's chapter ana-
lyzing U.S. foreign policy toward Islamic countries, for example, draws on
postmodemist ideas
of"the
Other" and the work ofDavid Campbell. Michael
W.
Collier's study
of
corruption in the foreign policy
of
Latin American
countries will appeal to the student unwilling to give up some aspects
of
positivism and causality, while making the four steps that rule-oriented
constructivism depends upon nonetheless. Government corruption is fast

INTRODUCTION 9
becoming
one
of
the
key
problems
of
our
times,
and
Collier
uses
constructivism to show how to combine within constructivist framework in-
sights
of
several disciplines/approaches into a more comprehensive social
theory
of
corruption. Gonzalo Porcel
Quero focuses on the study
of
Spanish
foreign policy during Franco's time to show how rule-oriented constructivism
can shed light on the important links among the makings
of
history, what he
calls the politics
of
memory, and the formulation
of
foreign policy. In doing
so, he describes how domestic politics can be a source for and a context from
which foreign policy emanates. The opposite also holds true; that is, foreign
policy often becomes a tool for the legitimation
of
domestic politics. Thus,
the careful study
of
Franco's regime casts much doubt on the separation
between domestic and foreign policy.
It
also calls into question the legitima-
tion discourse
of
the regime itself. His work, therefore, has important impli-
cations for a number
of
fields. It highlights the importance ofhistorical analysis
for FPA.
It
also underscores how one might go about classifying different
types
of
regimes according to the rule-type that is most prevalent in them. By
doing all
of
this, and perhaps more importantly, he shows us how one can
move freely and productively from the field
of
IR
into comparative politics,
social theory, or linguistics, and vice versa. Chapter 8
by
Shiping Zheng is
an example
of
a nonmember
of
the Miami IR Group picking up Onuf's
frame-
work to elucidate two points in the relation
of
the
People's Republic
of
China
and the Republic
of
China (Taiwan), the importance
of"words"
in constructing
what is China and the relationship between the two claimants
of
that mantle
and the flexibility afforded by constructivism in integrating
in his theoretical
framework "agents"
other than the two states.
As already mentioned, chapter 5 uses one case to show the range
of
dif-
ferent narratives produced by different approaches, constructivist and main-
stream, in making sense
of
Gorbachev's "new thinking." The number
of
case
studies
is small,
but
it
represents
different
degrees
of
uses
of
constructivism. The choice
of
the topics is also not without significance.
They include the discussion
of
the end
of
the Cold War, China, and Islam in
U.S. foreign policy, international corruption, and an example
of
what
Porcel
Quero calls
"historical
constructivism."
Part
III, "Reflections,"
contains a critical evaluation
of
the volume and
of
constructivism from positions close to the two perspectives in the middle
of
which constructivism is believed to stand (Adler 1997), namely, post-
modernism (chapter
10
by
Ralph Pettman)
and positivism (chapter
11
by
Paul
Kowert).
Both
Parts I and II amply demonstrate a point that might be found surpris-
ing, namely, that the relationship between constructivism and
FPA
is one
of
mutual benefit. Constructivism has already established its relevance to
IP.

10 FOREIGN POLICY
IN A CONSTRUCTED
WORLD
Cumulatively, the constructivist study
of
IR will help to integrate these two
issue areas once again and return foreign policy to its place in the context
of
international system. Conversely, FPA is highly relevant to constructivism
as a source
of
conceptual enrichment because it anticipates many constructivist
concerns, although to a constructivist's eye, in a somewhat truncated way.
Thus, although this book is about foreign policy, it is at the same time a
primer for the constructivist study
of
international relations in general.
Notes
My
thanks
go
not
only to the Miami
IR
Group members,
but
to countless graduate
students on
whom
I practiced my explanations
of
constructivism. They
made
valu-
able
comments
on
how
to improve particularly chapters
I,
3,
and
4.
Nick
Onuf
and
Ralph
Pettman
as usual helped
me
with the different drafts, Ralph Pettman
in par-
ticular
"anglicizing"
my
prose.
1.
Here I follow convention.
If
"international relations"
is capitalized, I and other
contributors are referring to an academic field
of
study.
If
the term is not capitalized, then
it refers to the subject matter
of
that field
of
study.
2. The term
"rule-oriented
constructivism" is Kurt Burch's, who distinguishes it from
structure-oriented constructivism and norm-oriented constructivism.
See 2001. The term
"rule based"
has been used
by
Emmanuel Adler (1997).
3.
See Mark Peceny's book review
of
Kubalkova
et al., 1998, in American Political
Science Review.
References
Adler, Emmanuel. 1997.
"Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics."
European Journal
of
International Relations
3:
319--363. ·
Burch, Kurt. Forthcoming.
"Toward a Constructivist Comparative
Politics." In Daniel
Green, ed. Constructivist Comparative Politics: Theoretical Issues
and
Case Studies.
Armonk,
NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Fierke, K.M., and
J0rgensen,
K.E., eds.
2001.
Constructing International Relations: The
Next Generation. Armonk,
NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Finnemore, Maitha. 1996. National Interests
in
International Society. Ithaca,
NY:
Cornell
University
Press.
Katzenstein,
Peter
J., Keohane,
Robert
0.,
and
Krasner,
Stephen
D. 1998.
"Interna-
tional Organization
and the Study
of
World Politics." International
Organiza-
tion 52( 4
):
645-685.
Kratochwil, Friedrich
V.
1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions:
On
the Contradictions
of
Practical and Legal Reasoning
in
International Relations
and
Domestic Affairs.
Cam-
bridge,
UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Kubalkova, Vendulka, Onuf, Nicholas, and Kowert, Paul,
eds. 1998. International Rela-
tions in a Constructed
World.
Armonk,
NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood. 1989. World
of
Our Making. Rules and Rule
in
Social Theory
and International Relations. Columbia: University
of
South
Carolina Press.
Peceny,
Mark. 1999. Book Review. American Political Science Review 94( I): 243.
Singer,
J. David. 1961. "The
Level
of
Analysis
Problem in International Relations."
In
K.

INTRODUCTION I I
Knorr and S. Verba, eds. The International System: Theoretical Essays, pp. 85-90.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, Steve. 1996. "The Self-Images
of
a Discipline: A Genealogy oflntemational Rela-
tions Theory." In Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds.
International Theory Today, pp.
1-
37. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walt, Stephen. 1998. "International Relations: One World, Many Theories."
Foreign Policy
110: 29-46.
Wendt, Alexander. 1999.
Social Theory
of
International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.

This
page
intentionally left
blank

I
Frameworks

This
page
intentionally left
blank

1
Foreign Policy, International Politics, and
Constructivism
Vendulka Kubalkova
The field
of
International Relations (IR) split in the 1950s into two parts:
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) and the study oflnternational Politics (IP) as
seen from a systemic point ofview.1
At the core
of
this split was the opening
up
of
the state, previously regarded in
IR
as a black box whose contents were
of
interest only to Political Scientists. Foreign policy analysts opened up the
box in order to explain state behavior. In a nutshell,
FPA
directs attention to
the attributes
of
states as units in order to reach conclusions about their rela-
tions. In contrast, IP focuses its attention on the relations
of
states, as a sys-
tem, in order to learn about the system's attributes. One proceeds from the
parts to the whole, the other from the whole to the parts. Once FPA had
"moved inside the box" (Figure
1.1
), scholars on each side saw little need for
each other, and the two subfields began to grow apart.
The purpose
of
this chapter is to set the scene for the entire volume, to
introduce and explain most
of
the terms (referring to those handled in chap-
ter 2) and include enough information about
eacl).
of
them to enable the reader
to follow the main theme
of
the book, which is the relevance
of
constructivism
in
IR
to both FPA and IP subfields. Indeed, most constructivists believe that
the FPA/IP split need not have occurred and that constructivism provides the
tools for putting the two fields back together.
I divide this chapter into two parts so that I can go twice over the same
ground, each time from a different angle. The first time around, I introduce
the main elements
of
my argument
by
defining FPA and IP, and then by
showing how they differ from each other and from other cognate fields and
why they developed the way they did. I take this story to the point at which
constructivism makes an entry into IR and discuss briefly how it has made
its presence felt. The second part goes over the same ground and both sim-
15

16 FRAMEWORKS
Figure
1.1
Foreign Policy and International Politics
International Politics
relations of interconnected parts
"black boxes"
plifies and complicates the argument at the same time. I distill the main ques-
tion that each
of
these approaches has tried to answer. This enables me to
show in a much more practical way the differences among the different ap-
proaches, while at the same time adding more detail
of
the individual ap-
proaches and introducing such important concepts as rationality, identity,
intersubjectivity, decision making, structure, and institutions. There are four
tables in this chapter and I refer to them many times throughout the entire
chapter. In fact, each follows from the one before, zooming in on a particular
part
of
it. There are entire libraries devoted to FPA and to
IP,
and the

FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 17
constructivist literature is also growing rapidly.
It
is important for me to stress
that the purpose
of
my
brief walk through FPAand IP is not to make a contri-
bution to their respective literatures or to suggest they ought to be skipped.
On the contrary, the chapter and the volume are supposed to encourage the
reader to go back to the IR literature, and to FPA in particular, to look at it
with constructivist eyes.
FPA and IP, Agent and Structure
To
this day, FPA and IP continue to be separated,
2 intellectually disconnected,
and even in some respects contradicting each other's assumptions and con-
clusions (Light 1994, 93). Their separation originally coincided with the "sci-
entific" or "behavioralist" revolution in the social sciences, its controversial
impact on IR studies having been played out in the course
of
what has been
known as the Second Debate. Scholars on both sides
of
the FPA/IP divide
stood together in this debate, since their common intention was to make IR
more scientific.
To
do so, scholars on both sides agreed that they had to leave
a great deal out
of
the picture. They were diametrically opposed, however, in
what need not be studied. In effect, each ceded what it did not study to the
other. Both claimed mutual complementarity
of
focus, and a primary con-
nection to realism, the main source
of
wisdom in IR that had emerged victo-
rious over "idealism" in what is referred to in IR studies as the First Debate.
Realism proved an ever more tenuous bond between FPA and
IP,
however.
For
half
a century now scholars on each side
of
the divide have followed
their own paths. They have drawn on different intellectual sources, they have
developed separate journals and subsections
of
professional organizations,
and they have offered different university courses and, in many cases, differ-
ent fields for the examination
of
graduate students.
Before the split, the study
ofFPA
and IP differed from each other largely
in emphasis. IR scholars were engaged in the description and evaluation
of
dramatic events and self-dramatizing individuals. What became later two
separate--FPAand IP--perspectives were still combined, with one the back-
drop to the other. FPA lifted foreign policy out
of
its broader context. There
was still a lot left. According to most definitions, FPA refers to a complex,
multilayered process, consisting
of
the objectives that governments pursue
in their relations with other governments and their choice
of
means to attain
these objectives. Governments rely in this regard on professional staffs, in-
cluding diplomats, trade negotiators, and military officials, but they draw on
other resources as well. Thus foreign policy encompasses the complicated
communications within governments and amongst its diverse agents, plus
the perceptions and misperceptions, the images
of
other countries, and the

18 FRAMEWORKS
ideologies and personal dispositions
of
everyone involved.
An
important part
of
the study
of
foreign policy has been the nature and impact
of
domestic politics.
3
During the formative first twenty years
of
FPA, a multitude
of
systematic
(but not systemic) frameworks was developed for what became known as
the comparative study
of
foreign policy making, for a long time one
of
the
main approaches to FPA. Comparative studies
of
foreign policy were thought
to increase the generalizing power
of
the sorts
of
explanations that lent them-
selves
to
scientific treatment.
If
the point was to develop theory that would
substitute for
IR
theory, many scholars thought that such an undertaking
sacrificed the descriptive richness that followed from concentrating analytic
attention on particular governments, important decisions, and the complexi-
ties
of
domestic politics. FPA scholars either were guided by more modest or
"middle-range" theories, or they took a single state as a frame
of
reference,
focusing on what was styled as the "internal setting
of
foreign policy"
or
the
study of"domestic sources
ofFP."
"Comparative studies
of
foreign policy,"
"middle-range theories," and "domestic sources
ofFP"
were for a long time
the three main approaches to FPA.
As we shall discuss later,
IR
scholars had always treated states as "actors"
analogous
to human individuals.
FPA
turned away from states as quasi'-persons
to the actual people who constitute governments and act on behalf
of
states. As
the term ''behavioralism" suggests, the focus on people's "behavior," and not
their motives or mental processes, was seen
as
the key to making IR scientific.
Behavior, it
was
argued, provided direct factual evidence that could
be
objec-
tively measured and used to evaluate theoretically derived hypotheses. The goal
ofFPA
as a science-namely, the search for regularities
in
the behavior across
decision makers in different states, but also in distinct groups
of
states, categoriz-
ing and comparing them either by region, size, political system, or degree
of
development-was
consistent with the positivist goals
of
the social sciences
discussed in greater detail in chapter
2.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Comparative Foreign Policy practically vanished,
at least in part because the enthusiasm for science waned in IR, and perhaps
also because
of
new developments on the other side
of
the intellectual di-
vide. In the years when FPA flourished in the name ofbehavioral science, IP
had failed to provide a scientific account
of
the system. The turning point did
not come unti11979 when Kenneth Waltz published his seminal work,
Theory
of
International Politics.
By
this time the fortunes
of
FPA and realism, the
doctrine underpinning both FPA and
IP,
had been flagging. The account
of
the system provided by Waltz, referred to as structural realism or neorealism,
could claim to be scientific because it found a place for people--highly ab-
stracted
people--who
behave, as rational maximizers, very much the way
economists claim that people do in a market. Markets in economics are struc-

FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 19
tures, and Waltz borrowed the idea. Waltz's systematic effort to formulate a
general realist theory
of
international politics was based on the use
of
the
concept
of
structure, which gave this form
of
realism the adjective "struc-
tural." Waltz used the concept
of
structure both to prop up the concept
of
system and to exclude all else from consideration. Waltz's elegantly simple
reformulation
of
realism abstracted from the picture everything internal to
states: subjective influences, ideas, unique
events-all
of
which affect actual
foreign policies. Once the mantle
of
science had passed from FPA to
IP,
however, most foreign policy analysts have been content to describe, although
with a high degree
of
sophistication and subtlety, the problems foreign-policy
makers face and the ways they respond to those problems.
Constructivism into the Breach
Since the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when constructivism as a new ap-
proach was introduced to IR, constructivists found in the split between for-
eign policy and international politics an important point
of
departure.
Superficially at least, the FPA/IP split appears to be a variation
of
a distinc-
tion extremely important to constructivists, namely, between the foreign-
policy maker as agent on the one hand and the structure
of
the international
system on the other.
The arrival
of
constructivism complicates a feature characteristic
of
ap-
proaches to IR, namely, that they borrow from other fields. As Figure 1.2
illustrates, FPA and IP have drawn on different ideas from different disci-
plines. The arrival
of
constructivism has coincided with what has been known
as the Third Debate in IR, a debate over the positivist assumptions
of
science
and their relevance to social phenomena. Thanks to this debate, the range
of
intellectual influences has been significantly enlarged, as Steve Smith shows
in the next chapter. The FPA/IP split literally begs to be explored through the
concepts
of
agent and structure, as developed in sociology and adopted by
constructivists. Constructivists applaud the tendency
of
FPA to look for the
agent--the foreign-policy decision
maker-wherever
he/she might be found.
The active mode
of
foreign policy expressed even in the term "making" also
resonates with the constructivists' stress on processes
of
social construction.
Constructivists, however, disapprove
of
the way the FP/IP split developed,
since agent and structure should never be torn apart nor should one be given
priority over the other.
Constructivists differ on what to do about the latter tendency (Figure 1.3).
Their differences undoubtedly stem from the fact that the terms agent and
structure are controversial in sociology, whence they were brought to IR, as
well as among constructivists in IR. ·

20 FRAMEWORKS
Figure
1.2
Intellectual Influences
on
FP/IP
1918
1950s
intellectual
influences
Behavioral
ism
psychology
economics
study of
decision-making
business administration
political science
mathematics
game theory
1978
1990s
sociology
social theory
agency
intellectual
influences
legalist institutionalism
diplomatic history
political science
study of systems
liberal economics
microeconomics
structuralism
social choice
theory
"Third Debate"
neoinstitutionalism
structure
Despite appearances, the correspondence
of
the terms "agent" and "struc-
ture" with FPA and IP respectively
is
as partial and misleading as the other
pair categories, or binary oppositions, used to separate FPA and IP--namely,
"micro-macro" and states as units versus the system
of
states. Looming over

FOREIGN
POLICY, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
21
Figure 1.3 Agency and Structure and IP/FP Split
.
..
..
..
. .
. .
.
.
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
. .
.
.
. .
. .
.
·
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
: :
..................
•
',
. .
:'
to all constructivists \
/ international life is social \
Agency
!
(as opposed to material only) \
!
and
constructed \
(privileged
in
/
(as opposed to pregiven) \
behavioralist :
••
,:
different social phenomena
••
~:~;e~~=l
• (e.g., norms, rules, institiutions, :
\ language) are ;
accounts of \
mediating, mutually ;
foreign \
reproducing,
enabling,
;
policy) \
coconstructing ;
\.
agency and structure
j
. .
. .
. .
',
-----------------.,
.·
. .
. .
.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
~
:
·.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . .
··~
~··
Structure
(privileged
in
utilitarian
structural
realist
theory or IP)
the key "mechanism": examples of authors:
• norms and social
context as crucial
explanatory variable
• institionalization and
intersubjectivity as
key concerns
• central preoccupation
with language
• "altercasting," mirror-imaging
Finnemore 1996,
Katzenstein et al. 1996
Ruggie 1998
Onuf 1989, the Miami
IR
Group 1998, Fierke 1998
VVendt1992b, 1999
these pairs are the great binaries
of
Western thought: subjectivity and objec-
tivity, atomism and holism, free will and determinism.
To
compound the
confusion, the terms "agent"
and
"structure"
came to IR already burdened
by
an abundance
of
other concrete meanings in ordinary
language--"
agent"
as in the KGB or CIA or as in "insurance agent,"
and
"structure"
as in archi-

22
FRAMEWORKS
tecture or a fixed, material inanimate object presumed always to have been
there, primordial or given.
The origin
of
terms "agent" and "structure" gives some clues as to their
abstract meanings in the service
of
constructivism. "Agent" derives from the
Latin verb
agere--"to drive, to lead, to act, to
do"-and
it means literally a
"person doing something." And "structure" is derived from the past parti-
ciple
of
the Latin verb
struere-"to
build"-and
it refers to something that is
in the process
of
being built. Thus an agent is, or depends on, a human being
who is capable
of
choosing, and acting on his choice, in some social setting.
I say "depends on," because human beings, as agents, can create fictional
persons such as the state and grant these persons agency
by
authorizing some
human being, as an agent, to act for them. The use
of
the term suggests that
human action is not simply determined by circumstances. The key features
of
agents are intentionality and meaning.
In contrast, the term "structure" does have a deterministic flavor. Here
too, structure's everyday meaning creates confusion. Social structure refers
to recurring patterns
of
social behavior, and especially to those patterns that
would seem to set limits on human agency. From the idea
of
the stability
of
patterned life conveyed by the term "structure" there is but a short step to a
determinism in which the efficacy ofhuman agency is lost. Structure, whether
observable patterns or underlying principles, is separated from agent, but it
still motivates social action. The effort to overcome the tension between these
terms is characteristic
of
constructivism. So is disagreement on how the over-
coming should be done.
Social action in which agents take part is a complex phenomenon.
It
is
loaded with diverse meaning for agents, who act with diverse intentions,
many (perhaps most)
of
which have unintended consequences. In contrast to
"action" or "agent," the term "behavior," which was the main focus in the
behavioral revolution and
of
FPA, refers strictly to observable phenomena,
exclusive
of
reflection, intention, and meaning. Agency thus has distinct "so-
cial" connotations that IP scholars are disposed to view as structurally deter-
mined,
if
indeed they are aware
ofthem
at all. Constructivists say that FPA,
and behavioralism in general, neglects the agent as a social being. FPAscholars
neglect it when they make an assumption that behavior is a dependent vari-
able, susceptible to objective assessment.
As I have suggested, the stress on agent and structure resonates with the
philosophical question concerning the degree to which what happens in hu-
man affairs can be ascribed to free will and the degree to which it is deter-
mined by social or material constraints. Constructivists do not find a contra-
diction between human choices and material determination because they hold
that international relations are social relations. By defining both foreign policy

FOREIGN POLICY. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 23
and international politics as social, they see that both must start with people
interacting in, and with, a world that is inextricably social and material. This
gives any social relation its dynamic nature and constructivism its ability to
see social relations as constantly changing. Many constructivists reject the
notion
of
seeing the social world
as
positivists
do--as
a world
of
reified
relations, that is to say, abstract concepts and relations made into concrete
objects, and natural laws
of
behavior waiting to be discovered. Instead
constructivism attaches great significance to processes that are likely to af-
fect each other in contingent and unexpected ways.
This is, however, where the similarity among constructivists ends.
Constructivists offer different solutions to the artificial separation
of
agent
and structure. Some have only a cosmetic change in mind, while others pro-
pose a radical rethinking
of
this duality, proposing instead their virtual fu-
sion in an ongoing process in which agents and structures constitute each
other as they go about whatever else it is that they do. Different styles
of
constructivism fasten on different social phenomena (for example, language,
rules, norms, structures) variously mediating, mutually reproducing, enabling
or coconstituting agency and structure. Figure
1.3
identifies the different
intellectual sources that constructivists draw on in their efforts to solve the
agent-structure problem. Chapter 3 develops the rule-oriented constructivism
to which I subscribe. Chapter 5 shows on an exploration
of
one particular
historical case just how different are the conclusions reached by mainstream
as well as constructivist approaches.
Seven Questions
In Table
1.1, I distill, in the form
of
seven questions, the characteristic ways
in which FPA,
IP,
and constructivism deal with the perplexities
of
agent and
structure in IR. I order these seven questions into four sets. The first set
pertains to traditional,
or
classical, IR before it split into behavioral
FPA
and
systemic
IP,
which are the subject
of
the second and third sets respectively.
The fourth set consists
of
two questions pertaining to constructivism, but
only one, the mainstream form
of
constructivism, is discussed in this chap-
ter.
Its discussion continues into the next chapter, which focuses on Alexander
Wendt's structurally oriented constructivism. The eighth question
is
discussed
indirectly in chapter 2 and takes up all
of
chapter
3.
Before the Split: Classical Realism (Question 1, Table 1.1)
As mentioned earlier, the classical tradition in IR lost, certainly
in
the United
States, in the course
of
the Second Debate in the 1950s, to the scientific,

Table
1.1
Questions Asked by
FP,
IP, and Constructivists
(ii
•
. 2 E
1/ll/)
1/l:.:
.!!!gl
()
....
.
Ill
Q)
-5
~a..
c.;;
a.c::
caca
E<C
caa..
~u.
iii
c::
"Cil
:::2:
1.
What
does
(rational
actor)
state A
do
to
state
B,
C,
D,
E,
etc.
(and
they
to
it)
in
response
to
(objectively
existing)
threats
they
individually or
collectively
represent
to
its
national
interest?
A.
Foreign
policy analysis
focuses
on
attributes of units
to
reach
conclusions
about
their relations
(from
parts
to
whole)
2.
How
does
individual
decision
maker
acting
on
behalf
of
state
A,
based
on
his
subjective
perceptions,
decide
what
to
do
to
states
B,
C,
etc.?
3.
Why
has
individual
decision
maker
acting
on
behalf
of
state
A,
based
on
his
subjective
perceptions
decided
what
to
do
to
states
B,
C,
etc.?
B.
International
politics
as
international
system
focuses
on
the system of relations to reach conclusions about system's
attributes (from the whole
to
parts)
4.
How
do
(objectively
existing
rationally
acting
states
A,
B,
C,
D,
E,
etc
.
called
a
system)
behave
(based
on
biology,
mathematics,
general
systems
theory,
cybernetics)?
~

E
(/)
·:;:
~
2
7i5
c
0
u
"5
(/)
5.
Neorealist,
structural realist approaches
How
do
(objectively existing rationally
acting)
states,
A,,
A2,
and
A3
•••
A,
behave
under
the
constraints
of
X,
Y,
Z,
etc.,
known
as
(material) structure
(i.e.,
unequal
distribution
of
capabilities
across
alike units-exogenously
given
constraints)?
6.
Neoliberal,
neoinstitutional
approaches
How
do
rules/institutions
created
by
states
A,,
A2,
Aa.
A,
mollify effect
of
X,
Y,
Z
(structure)
on
(rationally
acting)
states
A,
A2,
etc.
and
enable their cooperation-
despite
exogenously
given
constraints?
7.
Soft constructivism
What
do
states
A,
B,
C,
D,
with
their identities
and
interests
not
uniform
and
not
exogenously
given
but
intersubjectively
agreed
based
on
their different identities
(i.e.,
NB
no
longer
A,
A2, A3
etc.)
intersubjectively
agree
is
the
nature
of
X,
Y,
Z
(structure)
within
which
they
exercise
rational
choice?
How
do
ideas
change
identities
of
states
and
thus
their interests
and
policies?
8.
Rule-oriented
constructivism
(see
chapter
3)
"'
"'

26 FRAMEWORKS
behavioralist orientation that resulted in the FPA/IP split. The classical ap-
proach, epitomized in the work
of
Hans Morgenthau (1985 [1949]), man-
aged to accommodate both FPA and
IP.
Morgenthau's realism was both FP
oriented (Holsti 1998,
19)
and aware
of
"contextual imperatives" associated
with geography, history, economics, and politics (Pettman
1975, 34). Ac-
cording to his later critics, Morgenthau achieved this flexibility by using his
theoretical framework in a rather cavalier manner. Drawing on historical and
other descriptive materials, classical realism was based on several, often tacit,
assumptions:
1.
States are far and away the most important actors.
2.
The actions
of
states could be analyzed as
if
states were unitary,
monolithic actors.
3. States are rational actors. They choose the best available means to
achieve their ends as unitary entities.
These three assumptions gave rise to the image
of
states as billiard balls in
motion (Wolfers 1962; Keohane and Nye 1972; Wagner 1974). Their fre-
quent collisions set them
off
on new trajectories and occasion further colli-
sions. The billiard table does no more than set boundaries on a frictionless
surface. This vivid imagery overlooked the fact that Morgenthau talked a
great deal about responsibilities
of
leadership, thereby bringing the behavior
of
individuals in through the back door. Morgenthau also paid due attention
to "national character" and thus to the quasi-personification
of
states.
It
is
not very hard to see in Morgenthau and the classical tradition traces
of
the
romantic nationalism characteristic
of
the nineteenth century. In its extreme
form, glorification
of
nation-state went so far as to endow it with an indepen-
dent soul, will to power, or superior rationality.
What makes the imagery
of
the billiard table so compelling is the simple
way it conveys the mutual insecurity
of
states and the absence
of
superior
political authority (a condition conventionally described as anarchy). States
exist in an ever-present danger
of
war among themselves. Their actions are
driven
by
a feeling
of
threat and a drive to secure survival. Therefore foreign
policy must be security policy in the first instance, because survival is the
first task
of
the state in an anarchical and violent environment. In this regard
the "systemic perspective pervaded traditional analysis
of
foreign policy"
(Singer
1969, 22-23). The vocabulary
of
national power, purpose, and inter-
est reflected a homogeneous image
of
nation-states, and the dominance
of
the state's external environment over its internal environment left statesmen
little latitude in the courses
of
action that they could rationally choose.
Rationality as a pervasive concept in modem Western thought has played
a key role in Morgenthau 's classical realist theory but particularly in the

FOREIGN POLICY. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 27
realism
of
its later scientific variety. Positivism has made rationality central
to the study
of
the social world. As Ferguson and Mansbach put it, "[t]he
assumption
[of
rationality] is
...
essential for the construction
of
general
theory
....
Denial
of
rationality or disagreement about its meaning
...
must
inevitably force us to construct theory out
of
subjective factors and to reduce
dramatically the prospects for fruitful comparison"
(1988, 143).
Classical realism aspires to offer a general theory.
It
treats both states and
statesmen as rational. Without the rationality assumption, it would be impos-
sible for any statesman to act on the "national interest," which, for realists, is
what puts states, as billiard balls, into motion. The assumption
of
rationality
is also the starting point from which a dehumanized IP
of
the variety intro-
duced by Waltz later developed. This is because the external behavior
of
the
state was not explained as a series
of
decisions made on behalf
of
the state
but in terms
of
an objective situation that all states would respond to in the
same way. I cannot overstate just how crucial the concept
of
rationality is to
realism and all those approaches that make the state into the most important
actor. From a constructivist perspective, this is tantamount to making the
agent an automaton--a stimulus-response machine--that responds in a merely
mechanical way to externally generated impulses. As we shall discover in
chapter 3, rule-oriented constructivism also sees agents as rational but in a
conceptually very different way.
The Behavioral Side
of
the Split: Foreign Policy Analysis
(Questions 2
and
3, Table 1.1)
Moving chronologically from classical realism to behavioralism, there is one
particular book that stands out. In a monograph published in 1954, Richard
Snyder and associates undertook to account for all factors relevant to the
making
of
a foreign policy decision (reprinted in Snyder 1962, 14-185).
This systematic account is usually taken as the turning point in the study
of
foreign policy.
It
is
worth noting that FPA began
in
earnest by introducing
certain elements that many constructivists and postmodern scholars would
later take up. FPA opened up the state as a black box and turned attention to
just those personal, ideational, and cultural factors affecting decision mak-
ing that realism tended to minimize.
It
did so, however, by seeking to
objectivize subjective phenomena through the methods
of
positivist science.
Some scholars saw FPA's "decisionism" as a return nonetheless to idealism
of
sorts, through its study
of
ideas or ideological phenomena (Shklar 1964,
3-17). In James Rosenau's view, an emphasis on foreign policy decision
making "crystallized the ferment and provided
guidance-or
at least legiti-
macy-for
those who had become disenchanted with a world composed
of

28 FRAMEWORKS
abstract states and with a mystical quest for single-cause explanations
of
objective reality" (1967b, 202).
The problem was that when scholars looked inside the hard shell
of
the
billiard ball and opened the black box
of
the state, the contents
of
the box
soon
looked-as
Pettman (1975, 51)
put
it-like
a filing cabinet, full
of
files
with fascinating data but lacking an intelligible filing system. Almost a re-
versal from the previous practice had taken place: The presumably objective
reality
of
rational action was replaced as a central concern with the "objective
situation," consisting
of
a presumably objective description
of
subjective behav-
iors, whose sheer complexity made it unlikely that decision makers could re-
spond to it rationally from any presumably objective observer's point
of
view.
As I suggested, the discovery that decision making
is
necessarily subjec-
tive anticipates aspects
of
constructivist and even postmodem scholarship.
An
emphasis on the complexities
of
agency points up the limits
of
science
when applied to social phenomena. Among these complexities are:
1.
the relationship between discrete decisions and the continuous pro-
cesses
of
decision making (or foreign policy
making--see
chapter 4
below);
2. the relationship between the national interest and the subjective "defi-
nition
of
the situation"
by
particular decision makers;
3. the blurring
of
the distinction between domestic and international
factors in any decision maker's "definition
of
the situation"; and
4. the relation between institutions and processes, and thus the rel-
evance
of
two levels
of
analysis,
or
in Snyder's words ( 1962, 7),
"psychological variables" and "sociological variables."
In short, FPA focused on the subjective situation
of
the decision maker in
a group context, and tried to do so scientifically. That led scholars to social
psychology for the relevant concepts, propositions, and methods. Imported
concepts included "image" (Boulding 1956, 1959),
"belief
system" (Holsti,
Ole 1962), and misperception (Jervis 1969), all
of
which became regular
features
ofFPA.
Conversely, FPA progressively tended to neglect the objec-
tive features
of
the decision maker's world. Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout
(1956), for example, tried to introduce balance
by
talking about not
just
the
psychological "psycho-milieu"
of
decision making but also the "operational
milieu" (objective environment). Nevertheless, the neglect of"structure" and
social context increased over the years. As suggested
by
the formulation
of
question 2 in Table 1.1, which epitomizes this approach, the emphasis on
decision making changed the question that scholars asked. Instead
of
asking
questions about foreign policies as such, scholars turned their attention, though
selectively, to the processes through which decisions were arrived at.

FOREIGN POUCY. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 29
The ubiquitous concept
of
rationality, that constant shadow
of
the mod-
em
era, was never very far
off
in the wings. According to James Rosenau
(in Charlesworth 1967, 211), the next important development in FPA in
those heady days
of
enthusiasm was the introduction
of
game theory, which
puts the rational agents in situations where they must make choices contin-
gent on the choices that other rational agents make in anticipation
of
the
former's choices. This is "strategic interaction," and it models adversarial
situations with which
IR
is replete. (Nicholas
Onuf
considers strategic in-
teraction from a constructivist point
of
view in chapter 4.) FPAjoined the
other behavioral sciences in developing game theory as the "formal study
of
the rational, consistent expectations that participants can have about each
other's choices" (Schelling 1967, 213). Game theory is, or at least ought to
be,
of
great relevance to constructivism since it must always identity the
rules
by
which any game is played. In effect, game theory is
"a
book
of
instructions," a general plan, consisting
of
strategies, strategic decisions,
involving a plurality
of
rational agents in situations that offer incentives for
them to compete and to cooperate with each other or with others to varying
degrees (Shubik 1967, 241).
Game theory fostered the development
of
a powerful analytic perspective
that has come to be known as rational choice theory. Under its influence,
foreign policy analysts joined a broad multidisciplinary movement that even-
tually transformed realism, once Waltz had reformulated it in structural terms,
into neorealism. Rational choice theory also helped to transform liberal in-
stitutionalism, which realists had earlier dismissed
as
idealism, into what
became known as neoliberalism. Indeed, it is rational choice that they both
share that makes neorealism and neoliberalism barely distinguishable.
. The formal model
of
rational choice, which is closely identified with clas-
sical economic theory, provides the common starting point
of
all
of
these
approaches. This model stipulates that the rational decision maker has a stable,
intransitive order
of
preferences and the ability to assess courses
of
action
with sufficient reliability to bother going through the process. In these cir-
cumstances, the decision maker will always choose a course
of
action most
likely to produce an outcome that the decision maker would prefer over any
other likely outcome. Note that the inability to determine consequences with
complete reliability, conveyed
by
the term "likely," complicates the calculus
of
choice, but does not make the process
of
choosing any less rational. The
model breaks the process into the following steps:
1.
perceiving a problem,
or
the need to make some sort
of
choice;
2. listing the possible consequences
of
whatever course
of
action that
might be available for choice;

30 FRAMEWORKS
3. ranking possible outcomes in order
of
preference; and
4. choosing the best available outcome.
Scholars developing the decision-making model were quick to modifY
rational choice theory to suit the particular circumstances
of
foreign policy
decision making and significantly relaxed it in contrast to its original formu-
lation. Herbert Simon and other scholars soon indicated that rather than "op-
timizing," decision makers often choose the first viable option that is mini-
mally acceptable even
if
such a less-than-optimal choice does not maximize
their values or goals. This and similar modifications to rational choice theory
were expressed in concepts such as "satisficing"or "bounded rationality"
(Simon 1957), or Charles Lindblom's "disjointed incrementalism" or, more
informally, "muddling through" (Lindblom 1959). I might note here that these
qualifications add social context to rational choice theory, though not as much
as most constructivists would want. Nevertheless, as Onuf and Collier show
in their contributions
to
this volume, constructivists can deploy the assump-
tions
of
rational agency to good effect.
In this context it is important to mention one
of
the main texts in FPA, and
one
of
the few imported from FPA to IR as a whole. Graham Allison's Es-
sence
of
Decision ( 1971) systematically put rational choice in a social con-
text specific to foreign policy decision making in large, powerful states such
as the United States. He managed to summarize large bodies
ofFPA
writing
when he identified three approaches to the rational conduct offoreign policy.
The first is the standard realist approach, which takes the state as a unitary,
rational actor. The second approach emphasizes the limits on rationality that
large, hierarchical organizations impose on decision making as a process.
Here Simon's and Lindblom's insights are especially pertinent. The last ap-
proach sees foreign policy decision making in the context
of
multiple gov-
ernmental bureaucracies, each
of
which exhibits the preference ordering that
suits its functional mission. Threatening IP with irrelevance and promising
to reorient IR as a scientific enterprise, Allison's book has had an influence
far beyond FP
A.
The Systemic Side
of
the
Split: International Politics
(Questions 4, 5,
and
6,
Table 1.1)
If
it were not for Wendt's structure-oriented constructivism, and the closely
related norm-oriented constructivism
of
Peter Katzenstein and his circle, we
could halt the discussion at this point. In fact it might sound strange that
many
of
these constructivists overwhelmingly favor IP over FPA as their
critical point
of
departure. In the next chapter, Steve Smith offers as an an-

FOREIGN POliCY. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
31
swer to this puzzle Wendt's insistence on treating states once again as black
boxes. There is too the fact that Katzenstein and his group style their work as
falling into the category
of
"new security studies," and it is not on the FPA
but on the IP side
of
the discipline that security studies, dealing with the
context
of
the world, have always been located.
It
is because
of
the attention that so many constructivists pay to the IP
literature that I briefly discuss theories on the systemic side
of
the discipline,
that is, early systemic theories, followed by structural realist theories and
their rather limited modification
as
neoliberal theories. Besides, the termi-
nology
of
structural realism (now better known as neorealism) even seeped
into FPA as the latter diminished in vitality and coherence.
I now briefly turn to the right-hand column in Table 1.1. The distance
between the two columns and the two orientations ought to be clear from
the questions that they ask. In the hands
of
systemic theorists, IR becomes a
study
of
systemic-structural constraints within which a rational actor makes
his or her decision. Table
1.1
shows how these constraints deprive states
of
any
semblance
of
individuality, or, to
use
a term
much
favored
by
constructivists, identity. I depict this situation by changing the symbols re-
ferring to states A, B, and C to the virtual clones A1,
~.
and A3, all
of
which
are distinguishable only in the capabilities that they possess. The distribu-
tion
of
capabilities is itself held to be a defining feature
of
the structure
(Waltz 1979). As I suggested earlier, rational choice enters the IP side
of
the
split the way it does in liberal economic theory; namely, states make choices
under the same sort
of
systemic constraints that individuals do in markets.
As in the case
of
liberal economics, this way
of
thinking gives IR a static,
conservative slant, since preferences are given and assumed, and change in
them is deemed unlikely.
The "identity"
of
the state and its exogenous or endogenous determina-
tion are other concepts that at this point I need to introduce. Because classi-
cal realism is, in the first instance, a systemic theory, states are always in
danger
of
losing their distinctiveness. Morgenthau compensated for this by
attention to national character and statesmanship, but he undercut the coher-
ence and power
of
his systemic theory by doing so. By contrast, structural
realism makes a virtue
of
simplicity. Structural realists insist that states are
like units with exogenously determined but intrinsically given interests and
identities that are unchanging and interchangeable. These identities have four
features: sovereignty (states are all alike in all regards except their capabili-
ties), rationality (states are uniformly rational), vulnerability (states worry
only about their survival, and their primary interest
is
to make themselves
secure), and negativity (the lack
of
trust as to the motives
of
the others).
Held in common, these features leave states a limited repertory
of
choices in

32 FRAMEWORKS
their relations with other states. They fight, they form or leave alliances, and
they act to increase their capabilities from within themselves, thereby affect-
ing the distribution
of
capabilities in their favor.
This picture is not fundamentally altered by neoliberalism, which devel-
oped as a response to structural realism. What was initially a fierce debate
between neoliberals and neorealists (Baldwin 1993) has faded away now,
and, as an inseparable duo, they delimit what is often called the mainstream
in IR. Neoliberalism complicates the simple elegance
of
structural realism
by suggesting that an additional choice is available to states when they make
rational choices in their relations with other states. When they choose to
cooperate, as indeed they do when they form alliances, they often have good
reasons to institutionalize cooperative relations. States with very large capa-
bilities, as hegemons, are especially disposed to institutionalize relations that
benefit them (and perhaps others because
of
the collective guides that these
institutionalized arrangements create). Institutions tend to take on lives
of
their own, functioning as intervening variables between system structure and
state agents (Keohane 1984). In the metaphorical language
of
the billiard
table, they roughen up its surface or make it sufficiently uneven as to allow
the balls to nestle together in hollows.
Neoliberalism
in
IR alters the structural realist framework, but timidly.
Many scholars agree that the only remaining real difference between
neorealists and neoliberals is that neoliberals think states seek absolute, and
neorealists, relative gains in their relations with other states. With their com-
mitment to free trade, free capital flows, and "open" world economy,
neoliberals think any particular state does not mind
if
other states benefit
from the relation so long as the state in question benefits more. Neorealists,
in contrast, believe that states prefer a lesser benefit so long as other states
are excluded from any benefits at all (Grieco 1988; also see
Onuf
1989,
265-
270, for a constructivist version
of
this argument). Neoliberals tiptoe in the
direction
of
constructivism when they acknowledge that states act within
institutional constraints
of
their own making, whether intended or not. As
we
shall see below, this comes nowhere close to the constructivist understand-
ing
of
agent and structure.
Soft
or
Moderate, Structure-or Norm-Oriented Constructivism
of
Wendt, Katzenstein,
and
Others (Question
7,
Table 1.1)
The end
of
the Cold War meant the end
of
a distribution
of
material capabili-
ties that was more or less symmetrical between the two leading states. Unex-
pectedly rapid change
in
the distribution
of
capabilities exposed the
weaknesses ofneorealist and neoliberal theorizing, with its marked tendency

FOREIGN POUCY. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 33
toward structural determinism. Subsequent developments cast doubt
on
the assumption that states alone matter for theoretical purposes. Contrary
to expectations, the most troublesome conflicts were no longer between
states, nor were they strictly internal either. Although it is tempting to read
this as indicative
of
the demise
of
states themselves (as do many theories
of"globalization"), this, too, is an unwarranted simplification.
It
would be
more accurate to say that the world has gotten more complicated.
It
is also
surely right to say that the world was always more complicated than sys-
temic theory was prepared to acknowledge, even when encumbered with
auxiliary propositions about national character and institutional stickiness.
Obviously structure
matters--in
this IP is right. Equally obvious, agents
matter-FPA
is no less right. Yet neither suffices, and something needs
fixing. Enter constructivist repairmen. With at least one foot planted in the
mainstream, structure-and norm-oriented constructivists think they know
how to fix the problem.
Just
as
neoliberal institutionalism served to rescue a neorealist orthodoxy
that
had
diverged too far from reality, it might well be the case that
constructivism--at least the version
of
constructivism closest to the main-
stream-can
rescue IP from sterility and irrelevance. What we have here is
not a fundamental change in framework but a shift from a stress on the capa-
bilities
of
states, or the distribution
of
power as a structural property
of
the
system, to a stress on the identity
of
states (a word that earlier did not have an
important place in the vocabulary
of
IR since, as we recall, the system itself
was thought to be exogenously given and uniform with identities
of
states
also uniform). The shift from capabilities to identities has meant a shift from
what states can do because
of
their position in a structure, to what they want
to do because
of
how they see themselves in relation to others. According to
mainstream constructivists, it is no longer capabilities, but identities, that are
harnessed to interests. As such, the interests
of
states are no longer set by the
structure
of
the system
of
states.
The introduction
of
the term "identity" is not without problems. The vast
social science scholarship on identity is overwhelmingly based on individu-
als, who in their search for their "true selves" can assume and discard iden-
tities as
if
they were trying on masks.
It
is, in my opinion, a doubtful propo-
sition that people can make themselves over
as
they choose. My doubts mul-
tiply when scholars talk about a group
of
people, and particularly a large and
diverse group,
as
if
they constituted a single self
in
search
of
a plausible
identity. There is, however, a rather appealing way out
of
this impasse. Iden-
tifying "others" against whose alleged identity one forms one's own identity
simplifies the equation, especially insofar as groups are concerned. Nizar
Messari's contribution to this volume explores this process.

34 FRAMEWORKS
Some constructivists have already taken this route (Kowert 1998; Wendt
1999, 246-312). In simple terms, states create each other as enemies, rivals,
or partners, and proceed to share their interpretations
of
their respective iden-
tities. They also act in accordance with each other's expectations
of
them.
If
they make themselves what they are together, then "anarchy is," as Wendt
(1992b) so aptly observes, "what states make
of
it." In this constructivist
reading, anarchy
is
not a particular configuration
of
states
obj~ctively
exist-
ing and determining states' moves, but instead an intersubjective agreement
among them.
It
seems that scholars following this soft or moderate constructivist path
are trying to bring states back into the systemic picture by having them fol-
low an "endogenous" logic that derives from each state's identity. They see
this logic as fostering an intersubjective agreement among states on the struc-
ture
of
their relations. In part reflecting material circumstances, any such
agreement constitutes the state
of
affairs--anarchy, in this
case--it
alleges to
describe. In other words, the structure
of
the system has the same properties
that make identity, interests, and culture what they are. Thus Wendt ( 1999)
claims to have changed structural realism (with its stress on material factors
and the distribution
of
capabilities) into structural idealism (with its ideational
structures that are intersubjectively created). The ever present problem
of
reconciling the subjective and the objective in the name
of
science is re-
solved
by
this form
of
constructivism by this interesting spin: The recogni-
tion
of
the subjective
is
accomplished
by
claiming that what is objective is
really intersubjective.
According to Peter Katzenstein (1996, 24 ), identity is shorthand for
varying constructions
of
nationhood and statehood (national ideologies,
collective distinctiveness, and purpose). Many constructivists change the
order
of
march, as it were, for their research. Instead
of
beginning with
structure, which determines state's interest, as neorealists and neoliberals
do, they proceed from identity to interest, and from interest all the way
around again to structure, all
of
which, somewhat vaguely, constitutes
culture. After fix-it constructivist repair, structure ends up in an inclu-
sive category called culture, which nevertheless seems to be remarkably
bereft
of
content aside from the identity that states give to each other in
their relations.
Chapter 2 continues the argument from this point by examining the con-
tribution that Wendt's structure-oriented constructivism makes to FPA and
IP.
Chapter 3 is, as I have already said, devoted to rule-oriented constructivism.
Chapter 5 returns to the seven questions
of
Table
1.1
to show that the differ-
ences in approaches are not just theoretical, academic. When applied to a
practical problem, they point to very different policies.

FOREIGN
POLICY, INTERNATIONAL
POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM 35
Notes
1.
That it cannot be called International Political
"Analysis"
derives from the under-
standing
of
systems approach as holistic, not analytical, in temper (Waltz 1979).
2. The English language facilitated this process. In many languages, one word suf-
fices for what in English requires two words, politics and policy. The term "policy," as in
"insurance policy," is widely used, but it has a meaning unrelated to politics and is derived
from the Greek word for
"proof'
(apodixis).
In French, German, Spanish, Russian and
other Slavic
languages, and Farsi, for example, there is no separate word for policy as in
"foreign policy." There is only the equivalent
of
"politics," as
in
die Politik,
Ia
politique,
politika. These words are derived from the Greek word
polis.
In these languages, politics
and policy are generally regarded as synonymous in the sense
of"concerning
or
related to
government"
or
"government"
itself. Policy has an additional meaning, however, which
in English denotes the "manner
of
governing, conduct, direction
of
a state, conduct in
pursuit
of
one's interest, plan
of
action, wisdom, governing principle." The English lan-
guage acquired the term
"policy" by indirect means.
It
traveled from its origin as polis
(political society) via its Greek derivation
politeia
(form
of
rule, arrangement
of
offices)
into the
Old
Frenchpolicie. The French meaning
ofpolicie
was
"civil administration"
or
"administration
of
public order."
Edmund Burke used it in this sense, one that was im-
ported from France as late as 1791. The English language preserved the meaning French
gave it long after the French dropped it, however. The French kept only its derivative,
using it to refer to police officers. (Hegel used
polizei
more broadly to refer to civil admin-
istration.) Only English kept both words, "police"
and
"policy." The Americans gave the
latter term an additional meaning as in "policy oriented"
or
"policy relevant"
to refer to
knowledge that is professedly practical and useful rather than merely academic.
3. In addition to the definition
ofFPAjust
cited, these are some
of
the related defini-
tions: the International Politics discipline claims to study only power
among
states, leav-
ing the study
of
the power
inside
states to
political science.
What the state does inside its
borders is also known as
public policy
in contrast to
foreign policy,
which refers to states'
official contacts with other states. The distinction between foreign and public policy can-
not always be made clearly. Unlike public policy, foreign policy targets goals outside
of
a
state's exclusive jurisdiction. Unlike public policy, foreign policy is often veiled in se-
crecy (see chapter 4). Security
studies,
particularly
national security studies,
combine
domestic policy, foreign policy, and international politics issues that can lead to war.
Foreign Policy can also be confused with Diplomacy,
and International Politics
or
For-
eign Policy can be confused in turn with Diplomatic History. "Diplomacy"
means com-
munications between states. It is one form
of
foreign policy, but diplomacy is a more
limited activity typically undertaken by a professional staff.
Students
of
history
record
sequences
of
concrete
events, explaining an event in
terms
of
what
preceded
it without looking,
or
at least, without looking consciously,
for
general
or
abstract
patterns.
Diplomatic
History, too, may
be
confused
with
For-
eign
Policy. Unlike Diplomatic History,
Foreign
Policy as a field focuses
on
pro-
cesses
rather
than
outcomes.
References
Allison, G.T. 1971.
Essence
of
Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Baldwin, D., ed. 1993.
Neorealism and Neoliberalism:
The
Contemporary Debate.
New
York: Columbia University Press.

36 FRAMEWORKS
Boulding, Kenneth. 1956. The Image. Ann Arbor: University
of
Michigan
Press.
---.
1959.
"National
Images and International
Images."
Journal
of
Conflict Resolu-
tion 3(2): 120--131.
Brown, Chris. 1997. Understanding International Relations. New
York:
St.
Martin's
Press.
Charlesworth, James C., ed. 1967. Contemporary Political Analysis. New
York: Free
Press.
Checkel, Jeffrey. 1998.
"The
Constructivist Turn in International Relations
Theory."
World
Politics 50: 324--348.
Clark, Ian. 1999. Globalization and International Relations Theory.
Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity
Press.
Ferguson,
Y.,
and Mansbach,
R.
1988. The Elusive Quest: Theory and International
Poli-
tics. Columbia: University
of
South
Carolina
Press.
Fierke, K.M. 1998. Changing Games Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Se-
curity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca,
NY:
Cornell
University Press.
Grieco, Joseph. 1988.
"Anarchy
and the Limits
of
Cooperation: A Realist Critique
of
the
Newest Liberal Institutionalism." International Organization 42(3): 485-508.
Holsti, Kal. 1998. "The Study
of
the International Relations during the Cold
War." Spe-
cial Issue: The Eighty
Years
'Crisis 1919-1999, Review
of
International Studies 24( 5):
17-46.
Holsti, O.R. 1962.
"The
Belief
System
and National
Images."
Journal
of
Conflict Resolu-
tion 6 (September): 244--252.
Jervis, Robert. 1968.
"Hypotheses
on Misperception." World Politics 20(3): 454-479.
Katzenstein,
Peter
J., ed. 1996. The Culture
of
National Security: Norms and Identity in
World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein,
Peter
J., Keohane, Robert
0.,
and
Krasner, Stephen
D. 1998.
"Interna-
tional Organization and the
Study
of
World Politics."
International Organization
52(4):
645-685.
Keohane, Robert
0.
1989. "International
Institutions: Two
Approaches."
In R.O.
Keohane,
ed., International Institutions and State Power,
pp. 158-179. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Keohane,
R.O., and Nye, J.S.,
eds. 1972. Transnational Relations and World Politics.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Kowert, Paul. 1998.
"Agent Versus
Structure in the Construction
of
National
Identity." In
Vendulka
Kubalkova, Nicholas
Onuf, and Paul
Kowert, eds., International Relations
in a Constructed World, pp. 101-122.
Armonk,
NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Light, Margot. 1994.
"Foreign Policy Analysis."
In A.J .R. Groom and Margot Light, eds.,
Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory. London and New
York:
Pinter Publisher.
Lindblom, Charles. 1959.
"The Science
of
Muddling Through." Public Administration
Review 19(2): 78-88.
Morgenthau, Hans
J.
1985. Politics Among Nations. New
York:
Alfred Knopf, 1947.
Onuf,
Nicholas Greenwood. 1989. World
of
Our Making. Rules and Rule
in
Social Theory
and International Relations. Columbia: University
of
South
Carolina
Press.
Pettman,
Ralph. 1975. Human Behavior and World Politics. London. Macmillan.
Rosenau, James
N.
1967a.
"The Premises
and
Promises
of
Decision-Making
Analysis."
In James
C.
Charlesworth, ed., Contemporary Political Analysis, pp. 189-212. New
York: Free
Press.
---.
1967b. Domestic Sources
of
Foreign Policy. New
York:
Free
Press.
---.
1971. Scientific Study
of
Foreign Policy. New
York:
Free
Press.
Ruggie, John. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutional-
ization. London: Routledge.

FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
37
Schelling, T.C. 1967. "What Is Game Theory?" In James
C.
Charlesworth, ed., Contem-
porary Political Analysis,
pp. 212-239. New
York:
Free Press.
Shklar, Judith. 1964. "Decisionism." In Carl
J.
Friedrich, ed., Nomos
VII:
Rational Deci-
sion,
pp. 3-17. New York: Atherton Press.
Shubik, Martin. 1967. "The Uses
of
Game Theory."
In
James
C.
Charlesworth, ed., Con-
temporary Political Analysis,
pp. 20-30. New
York:
Free Press.
Simon, H.A. 1957.
Models
of
Man: Social
and
Rational. New
York:
Wiley.
Singer, J.D. 1969. "The Level-of-Analysis Problem
in
International Relations."
In
J.N.
Rosenau, ed.,
International Politics
and
Foreign Policy, pp. 20-30. New York: Free
Press.
Snyder, Richard C., Bruck, H.W., and Sapin, Burton. 1954.
Decision-Making as an Ap-
proach
to
the Study
of
International Politics. Foreign Policy Analysis Project Series,
No. 3, Princeton.
---,
eds. 1962. Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Approach to the Study
of
Inter-
national Politics. New York: Free Press.
Special Issue: The Eighty Years' Crisis 1919-1999, Review
of
International Studies 24( 5).
Sprout, H., and Sprout,
M.
1956. Man-Milieu Hypotheses
in
the Context
of
International
Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Center oflnternational Studies.
Taylor, Trevor, ed. 1978.
Approaches
and
Theory
in
International Relations. New York:
Longman Group Limited.
Wagner,
R.
Harrison. 1974. "Dissolving the State: Three Recent Perspectives." Interna-
tional Organization
28(3): 435-466.
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory
of
International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992a. "The Agency-Structure Problem in FPA." International Stud-
ies Quarterly
36(3): 245-270.
---.
1992b. "Anarchy Is What States Make
of
It:
The Social Construction
of
Power
Politics." International Organization 46(2): 391-425.
---.
1992c. "Levels
of
Analysis vs. Agents and Structures: Part III." Review
of
Inter-
national Studies
18(2): 181-185.
---.
1994. "Collective Identity Formation and the International State." American Po-
litical Science Review
88(2): 384-396.
---.
1995. "Constructing International Politics." International Security 20( I): 71--81.
---.
1999. Social Theory
of
International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Wendt, Alexander, and Duvall, Raymond. 1989. "Institutions and International Order." In
Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James Rosenau, eds., Global Changes
and
Theoretical Chal-
lenges: Approaches to World Politics
for
the 1990s, pp. 51-73. Toronto: Lexington
Books.
White,
B.P.
1978. "Decision-Making Analysis." In Trevor Taylor, ed., Approaches
and
Theory
in
International Relations, pp. 141-165. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Wo1fers, Arnold M. 1962.
Discord
and
Collaboration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Foreign Policy, International Politics, and Constructivism
Allison, G.T. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Baldwin, D. , ed. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Boulding, Kenneth . 1956. The Image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Boulding, Kenneth . 1959. “National Images and International Images.” Journal of Conflict
Resolution 3(2): 120–131.
Brown, Chris . 1997. Understanding International Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Charlesworth, James C. , ed. 1967. Contemporary Political Analysis. New York: Free Press.
Checkel, Jeffrey . 1998. “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World
Politics 50: 324–348.
Clark, Ian . 1999. Globalization and International Relations Theory. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ferguson, Y. , and Mansbach, R. 1988. The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Fierke, K.M. 1998. Changing Games Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Finnemore, Martha . 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Grieco, Joseph . 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the
Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42(3): 485–508.
Holsti, Kal . 1998. “The Study of the International Relations during the Cold War.” Special
Issue: The Eighty Years’Crisis 1919–1999, Review of International Studies 24(5): 17–46.
Holsti, O.R. 1962. “The Belief System and National Images.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 6
(September): 244–252.
Jervis, Robert . 1968. “Hypotheses on Misperception.” World Politics 20(3): 454–479.
Katzenstein, Peter J. , ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in
World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. , Keohane, Robert O. , and Krasner, Stephen D. 1998. “International
Organization and the Study of World Politics.” International Organization 52(4): 645–685.
Keohane, Robert O. 1989. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” In R.O. Keohane ,
ed., International Institutions and State Power, pp. 158–179. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Keohane, R.O. , and Nye, J.S. , eds. 1972. Transnational Relations and World Politics.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kowert, Paul . 1998. “Agent Versus Structure in the Construction of National Identity.” In
Vendulka Kubáková , Nicholas Onuf , and Paul Kowert , eds., International Relations in a
Constructed World, pp.101–122. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Light, Margot . 1994. “Foreign Policy Analysis.” In A.J.R. Groom and Margot Light , eds.
Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory. London and New York: Pinter
Publisher.
Lindblom, Charles . 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review
19(2): 78–88.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1985. Politics Among Nations. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1947.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1989. World of Our Making. Rules and Rule in Social Theory
and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Pettman, Ralph . 1975. Human Behavior and World Politics. London. Macmillan.
Rosenau, James N. 1967a. “The Premises and Promises of Decision-Making Analysis.” In
James C. Charlesworth , ed. Contemporary Political Analysis, pp. 189–212. New York: Free
Press.
Rosenau, James N. 1967b. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.
Rosenau, James N. . 1971. Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.
Ruggie, John . 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International
Institutionalization. London: Routledge.

Schelling, T.C. 1967. “What Is Game Theory?.” In James C. Charlesworth , ed.,
Contemporary Political Analysis, pp. 212–239. New York: Free Press.
Shklar, Judith . 1964. “Decisionism.” In Carl J. Friedrich , ed. Nomos VII: Rational Decision,
pp. 3–17. New York: Atherton Press.
Shubik Martin . 1967. “The Uses of Game Theory.” In James C. Charlesworth , ed.
Contemporary Political Analysis, pp. 20–30.New York: Free Press.
Simon, H.A. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.
Singer, J.D. 1969. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations.” In J.N.
Rosenau , ed., International Politics and Foreign Policy, pp. 20–30.New York: Free Press.
Snyder, Richard C. , Bruck, H.W. , and Sapin, Burton . 1954. Decision-Making as an
Approach to the Study of International Politics. Foreign Policy Analysis Project Series, No. 3,
Princeton.
Snyder, Richard C. , Bruck, H.W. , and Sapin, Burton eds. 1962. Foreign Policy Decision
Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics. New York: Free Press.
Special Issue : The Eighty Years’Crisis 1919–1999, Review of International Studies 24(5).
Sprout, H. , and Sprout, M. 1956. Man-Milieu Hypotheses in the Context of International
Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Center of International Studies.
Taylor, Trevor , ed. 1978. Approaches and Theory in International Relations. New York:
Longman Group Limited.
Wagner, R. Harrison . 1974. “Dissolving the State: Three Recent Perspectives.” International
Organization 28(3): 435–466.
Waltz, Kenneth . 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander . 1992a. “The Agency-Structure Problem in FPA.” International Studies
Quarterly 36(3): 245–270.
Wendt, Alexander 1992b. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics.” International Organization 46(2): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander 1992c. “Levels of Analysis vs. Agents and Structures: Part III.” Review of
International Studies 18(2): 181–185.
Wendt, Alexander 1994. “Collective Identity Formation and the International State.” American
Political Science Review 88(2): 384–396.
Wendt, Alexander 1995. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20(1):
71–81.
Wendt, Alexander 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Wendt, Alexander , and Duvall, Raymond . 1989. “Institutions and International Order.” In
Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James Rosenau , eds., Global Changes and Theoretical
Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s, pp. 51–73.Toronto: Lexington
Books.
White, B.P. 1978. “Decision-Making Analysis.” In Trevor Taylor , ed., Approaches and Theory
in International Relations, pp. 141–165. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Wolfers, Arnold M. 1962. Discord and Collaboration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Foreign Policy Is What States Make of It: Social Construction and
International Relations Theory
Adler, Emmanuel . 1997. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.”
European Journal of International Relations 3: 319–363.
Berger, Peter , and Luckmann, Thomas . 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday Books.
Checkel, Jeffrey . 1998. “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World
Politics 50(2): 324–348.
Goldstein, Judith , and Keohane, Robert , eds. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy:
Beliefs,Institutions and Political Change.Ithaca: Cornell University Press..

Hacking, Ian . 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press..
Hollis, Martin , and Smith, Steve . 1990.Explaining and Understanding International
Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jepperson, Ronald , Wendt, Alexander , and Katzenstein, Peter . 1996. “Norms, Identity, and
Culture in National Security.” In Peter Katzenstein , ed., The Culture of National Security:
Norms and Identity in World Politics, pp. 33–75. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik . 1997a. “Introduction: Approaching European Governance.” In Knud
Erik Jørgensen , ed., Reflective Approaches to European Governance, pp. 1–12. Houndmills,
UK: Macmillan.
Katzenstein, Peter , Keohane, Robert , and Krasner, Stephen . 1998. “International
Organization and the Study of World Politics.” International Organization 52(4): 645–685.
Keohane, Robert . 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International
Relations Theory. Boulder,CO: Westview.
Kratochwil, Friedrich . 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical
and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kubálková, Vendulka , Onuf, Nicholas , and Kowert, Paul , eds. 1998. International Relations
in a Constructed World. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, Nicholas . 1989.World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and
International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Onuf, Nicholas , 1998. “Constructivism: A User’s Manual.” In Vendulka Kubálková , Nicholas
Onuf , and Paul Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, pp. 58–78.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ruggie, John . 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International
Institutionalization. London: Routledge.
Schultz, Alfred . 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Searle, John . 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Penguin Books.
Singer, J. David .1961. “The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations.” In K.
Knoor and S. Verba , eds., The International System: Theoretical Essays, pp.
85–90.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, Steve . 1995. “The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations
Theory.” In Ken Booth and Steve Smith , eds., International Relations Theory Today, pp.
1–37. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smith, Steve . 1996. “Positivism and Beyond.” In Steve Smith , Ken Booth , and Marysia
Zalewski , eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, pp. 11–44. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Steve . 1997. “New Approaches to International Theory.” In John Baylis and Steve
Smith , eds., The Globalization of World Politics, pp. 165–190. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Smith, Steve . 2000. “Wendt’s World.” Review of International Studies 26(1): 151–163.
Waever, Ole . 1996. “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In Steve Smith , Ken
Booth , and Marysia Zalewski , eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, pp.
149–185. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walt, Stephen . 1998. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy
110: 29–46.
Wendt, Alexander . 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.”
International Organization 41(3): 335–370.
Wendt, Alexander . 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of it.” International Organization
46(2): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander . 1994. “Collective Identity Formation and the International State.”
American Political Science Review 88(2): 384–396.
Wendt, Alexander . 1998. “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations.” Review
of International Studies 24 (special issue): 101–117.
Wendt, Alexander . 1999.Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Winch, Peter . 1958. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
A Constructivist Primer
Austin, J.L. 1963. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Bergmann, Gustav . 1964. Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fierke, K.M. 1998. Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Fierke, K.M. 2001. “Critical Methodology and Constructivism.” In Fierke Jørgenson and K.M.
Fierke K.E. Jørgenson , eds. Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, pp.
115–135. New York, Amonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Kratochwil,Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Contradictions of
Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Milliken,Jenifer . 2001. “Discourse Study: Bringing Rigor to Critical Theory.” In K.M., Fierke
and K.E. Jørgenson , eds., Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, pp.
136–159. New York, Amonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory
and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1997. “A Constructivist Manifesto.” In Kurt Burch and Robert A.
Denemank , eds., Constituting International Political Economy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1998. “Everyday Ethics in International Relations.” Millennium:
Journal of International Studies 27(2): 669–693.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Speaking of Policy
Akashi, Kinji . 1998. Cornelius Bynkershoek: His Role in the History of International Law. The
Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Austin, J.L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Becker, Lawrence C. 1990. Reciprocity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bratman, Michael E. 1999. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, Jon . 1979. Ulysses and the Sirens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, Jon . 1989. The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Falk, Richard A. 1966. “On the Quasi-Legislative Competence of the General Assembly.”
American Journal of International Law 60(4): 782–789.
Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hovi, Jon . 1998. Games, Threats and Treaties: Understanding Commitments in International
Relations. London: Pinter, 1998.
Jervis, Robert . 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Johnson, James . 1993. “Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation between Critical
Theory and Rational Choice.” American Political Science Review 87(1): 74–86.
Jones, Dorothy V. 1992. “The Declaratory Tradition in Modem International Law.” In Terry
Nardin and David R. Mapel . eds., Traditions of International Ethics, pp. 42–61. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kratochwil, Friedrich . 1995. “Contract and Regimes: Do Issue Specificity and Variations of
Formality Matter?” In Volker Rittberger , ed., Regime Theory and International Relations, pp.
77–93. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lake, David A. , and Powell, Robert . 1999. “International Relations: A Strategic Choice
Approach.” In David A. Lake and Robert Powell , eds., Strategic Choice and International
Relations, pp. 3–38. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lasswell, Harold D. , and Kaplan, Abraham . 1950. Power and Society: A Framework for
Political Inquiry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lauterpacht, H. 1927. Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (with Special
Reference to International Arbitration). London: Longmans, Green.
Lipson, Charles . 1991. “Why Are Some International Agreements Informal?” International
Organization 45(4): 495–538.
Maoz, Zeev , and Felsenthal, Dan S. 1987. “Self-binding Commitments, the Inducement of
Trust, Social Choice, and the Theory of International Cooperation.” International Studies
Quarterly 31(2): 177–200.
Mauss, Marcel . 1967. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Ian
Cunnison , trans. New York: W.W. Norton.
Meehan, Eugene J. 1971. “The Concept ‘Foreign Policy.’” In Wolfram F. Hanrieder , ed.,
Comparative Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays, pp. 265–294. New York: David McKay.
Mühlhäusler, Peter , and Harré, Rom . 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic
Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Onuf, N.G. 1970. “Professor Falk on the Quasi-Legislative Competence of the General
Assembly.” American Journal of International Law 64(2): 349–355.
Onuf, N.G. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory arid International
Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
Onuf, N.G. 1998a. “Constructivism: A User’s Manual.” In Vendulka Kubalkova , Nicholas
Onuf , and Paul Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, pp. 58–78.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, N.G. 1998b. The Republican Legacy in International Thought. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Onuf, N.G. 1998c. “Everyday Ethics in International Relations.” Millennium 27(3): 669–693.
Onuma, Yasuaki . 1993. “Agreement.” In Yasuaki Onuma , ed., A Normative Approach to
War: Peace, War, and Justice in Hugo Grotius, pp. 174–220. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Oppenheim, L. 1955. International Law: A Treatise, 8th ed. H. Lauterpacht , vol. 1. New York:
David McKay.
Peters, B. Guy and van Nispen, Frans K.M. , eds. 1998. Public Policy Instruments:
Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Rowe, Nicholas . 1989. Rules and Institutions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. , and Vanderveken, Daniel . 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Soviet “New Thinking” and the End of the Cold War: Five
Explanations
Alker, H.E. , and Biersteker, T.J. 1984. “The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future
Archeologist of International Savoir-Faire.” International Studies Quarterly 28(2) 121–142.
Banks, Michael . 1984. “The Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In M. Light and A.J.R. Groom , ed.,
International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory, pp. 7–26. London: Frances Pinter.
Berner, Wolfgang , and Dahm, Helmut . 1987/1988. “‘Neues Denken’ in der Aussenpolitik der
UdSSR mit Dokumentation.” Berichte des Bundesinstituts für Ostwissenschaftliche und

International Studien 46: 1–81.
Bialer, Seweryn . 1987. “Gorbachev’s Move.” Foreign Policy 68(Fall): 59–87.
Bovin, A. 1986. The Imperative of the Nuclear Age. Moscow: Novosti.
Brown, Archie . 1986. “Change in the Soviet Union.” Foreign Affairs 64(5): 1048–1065.
Bull, H. 1977. The Anarchical Society. London: Macmillan.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1997. Ideas and International Political Change. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Cohen, Stephen F. 1985. Rethinking Soviet Experience: Politics and History Since 1917.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, Stephen F. 2000. Failed Crusade: A merica and the Tragedy of Post-Communist
Russia. New York, London: W.W. Norton.
Dallin, Alexander . 1987. “Soviet New Foreign Policy.” Radio Liberty Research Bulletin 2.
Deutsch, Karl W. et al. 1957. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Evangelista, Matthew . 1987. “‘New Thinking’ in Foreign Policy.” The Nation, 13 June.
Fierke, K.M. 2001. “Critical Methodology and Constructivism.” In K.M. Fierke and K.E.
Jergensen , eds., Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, pp. 115–135.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Fortescue, S. 1986. The Communist Party and Soviet Science. London: Macmillan.
Friedrich C.J. , and Brzezinski, Z.K. 1956. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. New York:
Praeger.
Glickham, C. 1986. “New Directions in Soviet Foreign Policy.” Radio Liberty Research
Bulletin, Supplement 2/86, 6(September): 1–26.
Goldstein, Judith , and Keohane, Robert , eds. 1993. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs,
Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gorbachev, Mikhail . 1988. Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World. New
York: Harper and Row.
Gramsci, Antonio . 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Gretskii, M.N. 1987. “Gramshi i Sovremennost” (Gramsci and the Present). Voprosy Filosofi
4: 114.
Grinko, V.S. 1983. “Problema Cheloveka v Rabotakh Antonio Gramshi” [The problem of man
in the world of Antonio Gramsci], Filosofskie Nauki 2: 33–42.
Gross Stein, Janice . 1954. “Political Learning by Doing: Gorbachev as Uncommitted Thinker
and Motivated Learner.” In Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds.,
International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, pp. 223–259. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Harries, Owen . 1991. “Communism, the Cold War, and the Intellectuals.” Commentary
92(4).
Herrmann, Richard K. 1995. “Conclusions: The End of the Cold War—What Have We
Learned?” In Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds., International Relations
Theory and the End of the Cold War, pp. 259–285. New York: Columbia University Press.
Herman, Robert G. 1996. “Identity, Norms, and National Security: The Soviet Foreign Policy
Revolution and the End of the Cold War.” In Peter J. Katzenstein , ed., The Culture of
National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, pp. 271–316. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hoffmann, Stanley . 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus
106(3): 41–66.
Holsti, Ole . 1972. “The Study of International Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows: Theories of
the ‘Old Right’ and the ‘New Left.’” Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Sciences.
Karatnytsky, Adrian . 1992. “Getting It All Wrong: The Fall of Sovietology.” Freedom Review
23(2): 20–38.
Katzenstein, Peter J. , ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in
World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Koslowski, Rey , and Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1994. “Understanding Change in International
Politics: The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System.” International

Organization 48(2): 214–247.
Kubálková, V. 1979. “Moral Precepts of Soviet Politics.” In R. Pettman . ed., Moral Claims in
World Affairs. London: Croom Helm; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Kubálková, V. 1990. “Soviet Thinking on International Relations and the 28th CPSU
Congress.” The Oxford International Review 1(2).
Kubálková, V. 1994. “A Requiem for the Soviet Union.” In M. Mesbahi , ed., Russia and the
Third World in the Post-Soviet Era, pp. 19–44. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Kubálková, V. (with Onuf, N. , and Kowert, P. ). 1998a. “Constructing Constructivism.” In V.
Kubálková , N.G. Onuf and P. Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kubálková, V. 1998b. “Reconstructing the Discipline: Scholars as Agents.” In V. Kubálková ,
N.G. Onuf , and P. Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, pp.
193–201. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kubálková, V. 1998c. “The Twenty Years Catharsis: E.H. Carr and IR.” In V. Kubálková ,
N.G. Onuf , and P. Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, pp. 25–57.
Armonk, NY: M.E, Sharpe.
Kubálková, V. 2000. “Towards an International Political Theology.” Millennium, Special Issue
on Religion and International Relations 29(3 Fall): 675–704.
Kubálková, V. 2001. “A Tale of Two Constructivisms at the End of the Cold War.” Note de
recherche/Working paper 9, REGIS (Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur la Securite
Internationale/Research Group International Security), University of Montreal, McGill
University, pp. 1–44; also on Columbia International Affairs Online,
http://ww2.mcgill.ca/regis/gersipub.htm.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1977. “A Double Omission.” British Journal of
International Studies 3(October): 286–307.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1978. “The Soviet Concept of Peaceful Coexistence:
Some Theoretical and Semantic Problems.” The Australian Journal of Politics and History
XXIV(2): 184–199.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1980a. “Detente: Not with Hindsight.” Australian
Outlook 34(2): 131–141.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1980b. Marxism-Leninism and Theory of International
Relations. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1981a. International Inequality. London: Croom Helm.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1981b. “Marxist Perspectives in Studies of
International Relations: A Rejoinder.” Review of International Studies 7: 51–57.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1983. “The Brezhnev Doctrine and Eastern Europe.”
World Review 22(2): 21–32.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1985a. Marxism and International Relations. In S.
Lukes and Raymond Williams , eds., Marxist Introductions series. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1985b. “The Soviet Idea of Peace and Peaceful Co-
existence.” In J.D. Frodsham , ed., Interdisciplinary Approaches to Peace, pp. 233–249.
Sydney: PWPA.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1989a. Marxism and International Relations. Oxford
Paperback. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kubálková, V. , and Cruickshank, A.A. 1989b. Thinking New about Soviet “New Thinking”.
Berkeley: University of California/Berkeley, Institute of International Studies.
Kubálková, V. Onuf, N. and, Kowert, P. , eds. 1998. International Relations in a Constructed
World. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Lebow, Richard Ned . 1995a. “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War and the Failure of
Realism.” In Richard Ned Lebow , and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds., International Relations
Theory and the End of the Cold War, pp. 23–57. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lebow, Richard Ned . 1995b. “The Search for Accommodation: Gorbachev in Comparative
Perspective” In Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds., International
Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, pp. 167–187. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Lebow, Richard Ned , and Thomas Risse-Kappen . 1995a. “Introduction: International
Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War.” In Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-
Kappen , eds., International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, pp. 1–23. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Lebow, Richard Ned , and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds. 1995b. International Relations
Theory and the End of the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press.
Legvold, Robert . 1988a. “The Emerging Revolution in Soviet Policy.” Collin Miller Lecture,
Berkeley, 25 February.
Legvold, Robert , and the Task Force on Soviet New Thinking . 1988b. Gorbachev’s Foreign
Policy: How Should the United States Respond? Headline Series No. 284, Foreign Policy
Association, April.
Light, M. 1987. ‘“New Thinking’ in Soviet Foreign Policy.” Coexistence 24(3): 233–243.
Light, M. 1988. The Soviet Theory of International Relations. London: Wheatsheaf Books.
Matveev, S. 1985. “Problemy Vzaimosviazi Politiki, Kultury i Mirovozreniia v ‘Tiurem-nykh
Tetradiakh’ A. Gramshi” [Problems of relations of politics, culture and worldview in the prison
notebooks of A. Gramsci]. Filosofskie Nauki 6.
Meissner, Boris . 1986. “Gorbachev’s Foreign Policy Programme.” Aussenpolitik 37(2):
107–120.
Meissner, Boris . 1987. “Gorbachev’s Perestroika: Reform or Revolution?” Aussenpolitik 38.
Miller, J.F. 1988. “Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’: The Diplomatic and Military Implications.”
Quadrant 32, 7(296): 15–19.
Mueller, John . 1995. Quiet Cataclysm: Reflections on the Recent Transformation of World
Politics. New York: HarperCollins.
“October Revolution, Peaceful Coexistence.” New Times, 9 November 1987.
Onuf, Nicholas . 1989. World of Our Making. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Oye, Kenneth A. 1995. “Explaining the End of the Cold War and the Failure of Realism.” In
Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds., International Relations Theory and
the End of the Cold War, pp. 57–85. New York: Columbia University Press.
Petrovskij, Vladimir . 1986. “Moscow’s Foreign Policy Initiatives.” Soviet Analyst 15(16):
33–35.
Pettman, Ralph . 2000. Commonsense Constructivism, or the Making of World Affairs.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Plimak, E.G. 1987. “Novoe Myshlenie: Perspektivy Sotsialnogo Obnovleniia Mira” [New
thinking—perspectives on the social renewal of the world]. Pravda, 14 November.
Puddington, Arch . 1990. “The Anti-Cold War Brigade.” Commentary (August).
Risse-Kappen, Thomas . 1995. “Ideas Do Not Float Freely.” In Richard Ned Lebow and
Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds., International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War,
pp. 187–223. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sestanovich, Stephen . 1988. “Gorbachev’s Foreign Policy: A Diplomacy of Decline.”
Problems of Communism 37(1): 3–17.
Shenfield, Stephen . 1987. The Nuclear Predicament: Explorations in Soviet Ideology.
Chatham House paper 37. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smirnov, G. 1980. Antonio Gramshi. Izbrannye Proizvedeniia [Antonio Gramsci, collected
works]. Moscow: Novosti.
Snyder, Jack . 1987/1988. “The Gorbachev Revolution: A Waning of Soviet Expansionism?”
International Security 12(3): 93–131.
Snyder, Jack . 1995. “Myths, Modernization and the post-Gorbachev World.” In Richard
Lebow and Thomas Risse-Kappen , eds., International Relations Theory and the End of the
Cold War, pp. 109–127. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer . 2000. “Competing Paradigms or Birds of a Feather?
Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared.” International Studies Quarterly
44(1 March): 97–119.
Speeches to Plenary Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee, 25–26 June 1987. Moscow:
Novosti.
Tass , 2 November 1988; FBIS-SOV-88-215, 7 November 1988.

Valkenier, E.K. 1987. “New Soviet Thinking about the Third World.” World Policy Journal
4(4): 651–674.
Waltz, Kenneth . 1954. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth . 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander . 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics.” International Organization 46(2): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander . 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Wettig, Gerhard . 1987. “Gorbachev and ‘New Thinking’ in the Kremlin’s Foreign Policy.”
Aussenpolitik 38(2): 144–154.
Zhi, Rong , and Zhang, Wuzhuan . 1988. “Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’ and Foreign Policy
Adjustments.” Beijing Review 15–21 August: 19–24.
Thus Spoke Franco: The Place of History in the Making of Foreign
Policy
Aguilar Fernández, Paloma . 1996a. Collective Memory of the Spanish Civil War: The Case
of the Political Amnesty in the Spanish Transition to Democracy. Madrid: Instituto Juan
March de Estudios e Investigaciones.
Aguilar Fernández, Paloma . 1996b. Memoriay Olvido de la Guerra Civil Espahola. Madrid:
Alianza Editorial
Aguilar Fernández, Paloma . 1998. “The Memory of the Civil War in the Transition to
Democracy: The Peculiarity of the Basque Case.” West European Politics 21(4): 52.
Alba, Victor . 1978. Transition in Spain: From Franco to Democracy. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Alba, Victor . 1980. Todos Somos Herederos de Franco. Barcelona: Planeta.
Archer, Margaret S. 1996. Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Armero, José Antonio . 1978. La Politica Exterior de Franco. Barcelona: Planeta.
Barahona de Brito, Alexandra . 2001. The Politics of Memory and Democratization. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Barthes, Roland . 1976. “From Work to Text.” In Josue V. Harari , ed., Textual
Strategies:Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Byrnes, Mark S. 1999. “Overruled and Worn Down: Truman Sends an Ambassador to
Spain.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 29(2): 263.
Carr, E.H. 1961. What Is History? London: Penguin Books.
Chomsky, Noam . 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Connerton, Paul . 1989. How Societies Remember. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V.J. 1994. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Cortada, James . 1980. Spain in the Twentieth-Century World: Essays on Spanish
Diplomacy, 1898–1978. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Cox, Robert W. 1981. “Social Forces, State and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10(2): 128–137.
Del Rio Cisneros, Agustin . 1968. Discursosy Mensajes del Jefe del Estado: 1964—1967.
Madrid: Publicaciones Espanolas.
Fierke, Karin . 1998. Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Crítical Investigations in
Security. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Fierke, Karin . 2001. “Crítical Methodology and Constructivism.” In Karin Fierke and Knud E.
Jurgensen , eds., Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Fontana, Josep , ed. 1986. España Bajo el Franquismo. Serie General Temas Hispanicos.
Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.

Galinsoga, Luis de . 1956. Centinela de Occidente: Semblanza Biográfica de Francisco
Franco La Epopeyay sus Heroes, ed. con la colaboracion del Teniente General Franco
Salgado. Barcelona: AHR.
Gallo, Max . 1974. Spain Under Franco: A History. Jean Stewart , trans. New York: E.P.
Dutton.
Giddens, Anthony . 1976. New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of
Interpretative Sociologies. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, Anthony . 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Gillis, J.R. (1994). “Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship.” In J.R. Gillis , ed.,
Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity, pp. 3–23. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Grugel, Jean , and Rees, Tim . 1997. Franco’s Spain. New York: Arnold.
Habermas, Jiirgen . 1998. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of
Law and Democracy. William Rehg , trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heywood, Paul . 1995. The Government and Politics of Spain. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hirsch, Herbert . 1995. Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Studying Death to Preserve
Life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Jáuregui, Fernando . 1995. Lo Que Nos Queda de Franco: Simbolos, Personajes, Leyesy
Costumbres, Veinte Años Despues. Madrid: Temas de Hoy.
Juliá, Santos , and Casanova, Julian , eds. 1999. Victimas de la Guerra Civil. Madrid: Temas
de Hoy.
Katzenstein, Peter , ed. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World
Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kristeva, Julia . 1986. The Kristeva Reader. Toril Moi , ed. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Kowert, Paul . 1998. “Agent Versus Structure in the Construction of National Identity.” In
Vendulka Kubálková , Nicholas Onuf , and Paul Kowert , eds., International Relations in a
Constructed World, pp. 101–122. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kundera, Milan . 1981. The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. Michael Henry Heim , trans.
New York: Knopf.
Lakoff, George , and Johnson, Mark . 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind
and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Larraya, José Miguel . 1999. “EI PP se Queda Solo en el Congreso y No Condena la
Sublevacion de Franco.” El Pais Digital, 15 September, http://elpais.es.
Little, Douglas . 1985. Malevolent Neutrality: The United States, Great Britain, and the
Origins of the Spanish Civil War. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press.
Lizcano, Pablo . 1981. La Generacidn del 56: La Universidad contra Franco. Barcelona:
Grijalbo.
Machado, Antonio . 1997. Poesias Completas, 25 ed. Coleccion Austral and. Manuel Alvar ,
ed. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
Madariaga, Salvador de . 1992. General, Marchese Usted. Madrid: Grupo Libro 88.
Mesa, Roberto . 1988. Democracia y Politica Exterior en España. Madrid: Eudema.
Nietzsche, Friedrich . 1957. The Use and Abuse of History. Adrian Collins , trans. New York:
Bobbs-Merrill.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory
and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1998. “Constructivism: A User’s Manual.” In Vendulka
Kubálková , Nicholas Onuf , and Paul Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed
World, pp. 58–78. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood . 1999. “Speaking of Policy.” Paper presented at the National
Conference of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC, 16–21 February.
Orr, Leonard . 1991. A Dictionary of Crítical Theory. New York: Greenwood Press.
Payne, Stanley G. 1987. The Franco Regime 1936–1975. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.

Payne, Stanley G. 1996. El Fascismo. Barcelona: Altaya.
Pereira, Juan Carlos . 1983. Introduccion al Estudio de la Politica Exterior de España (siglos
XIX y XX). Madrid: Akal.
Pérez-Díaz, Victor M. 1993. The Return of Civil Society: The Emergence of Democratic
Spain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pollack, Benny . 1987. The Paradox of Spanish Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Porcel Quero, Gonzalo . 2001. “Towards Historical Constructivism: An Analytical Framework
for the Study of Culture and Identity.” Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
International Studies Association, Chicago, 20–24 February.
Preston, Paul . 1996. A Concise History of the Spanish Civil War. London: Fontana Press.
Preston, Paul . 1997. “Franco’s Nazi Haven.” History Today 47(7): 8–10.
Robinson, Ian . 1973. The New Grammarians’ Funeral: A Critique of Noam Chomsky’s
Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London:
Oxford University Press.
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Steve . 1996. “The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations
Theory.” In Ken Booth and Steve Smith , eds., International Relations Theory Today, pp.
1–37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Steve . 2000. “Wendt’s World.” Review of International Studies 26(1): 151–163.
Sueiro, Daniel , and Diaz Nosty, Bernardo . 1985. Un Imperio en Ruinas: Historia del
Franquismo (I). Barcelona: Editorial Argos Vergara.
Sueiro, Daniel , and Diaz Nosty, Bernardo . 1985. Las Corrupciones del Poder: Historia del
Franquismo (II). Barcelona: Editorial Argos Vergara.
Thelen, David , ed. 1990. Memory and American History. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Tusell, Javier . 1996. La Dictadura de Franco. Barcelona: Altaya.
Viñas, Angel . 1984. Guerra, Dinero, Dictadura: Ayuda Fascista y Autarquia en la Espana de
Frañco. Serie General Temas Hispanicos. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.
Waltz, Kenneth . 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wendt, Alexander . 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.”
International Organization 41(3): 335–370.
Wendt, Alexander . 1996. “Identity and Structural Change in International Politics.” In Yosef
Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil , eds., The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, pp.
47–64. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Wendt, Alexander . 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
White, Hayden . 1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe.
Baltimore. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, Hayden . 1992. The Content of the Form.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Failed Policy: Analyzing Inter-American
Anticorruption Programs
Adler, E. 1997. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European
Journal of International Relations 3(3): 319–363.
Almond, Gabriel A. , and Verba Sidney . 1963. The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1966. American Federalism: A View from the States. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell Company.

Elazar, Daniel J. 1970. Cities of the Prairie: The Metropolitan Frontier and American Politics.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1994. The American Mosaic. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ellis, Richard J. 1993. American Political Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geddes, Barbara . 1991. “A Game Theoretic Model of Reform in Latin American
Democracies.” American Political Science Review 85(2): 371–392.
Geddes, Barbara . 1994. Politician’s Dilemma, Building State Capacity in Latin America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Greif, Avner . 1994. “Cultural Beliefs and the Organization of Society: A Historical and
Theoretical Reflection on Collectivist and Individualist Societies.” Journal of Political
Economy 102(5): 912–950.
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 1970. “Introduction.” In A.J. Heidenheimer , ed., Political Corruption,
Readings in Comparative Analysis, pp. 3–28. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Huntington, Samuel R. 1968. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Johnson, Bryan T. , Holmes, Kim R. , and Kirkpatrick, Melanie . 1999. 1999 Index of
Economic Freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal.
Johnston, Michael . 1983. “Corruption and Political Culture in America: An Empirical
Perspective.” Publius 13(1): 19–39.
Johnston, Michael . 1994 “Comparing Corruption: Conflicts, Standards and
Development.”Paper presented at the XVI World Congress of the International Political
Science Association, Berlin, Germany, August 1994.
Johnston, Michael . 1998. “Fighting Systemic Corruption: Social Foundations for Institutional
Reform.” European Journal of Development Research 10(1): 85–104.
Klitgaard, Robert . 1988. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lasswell, H.D. 1950. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. New York: P. Smith.
Leiken, R.S. 1996. “Controlling the Global Corruption Epidemic.” Foreign Policy 105 (Winter):
55–73.
Lijphart, Arend . 1990. “Size, Pluralism, and the Westminster Model of Democracy:
Implications for the Eastern Caribbean.” In J. Heine , ed., A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons
of Grenada, pp. 321–340. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Manzetti, L. , and Blake, C.H. . 1996. “Market Reforms and Corruption in Latin America: New
Means for Old Ways.” Review of International Political Economy 3(4): 662–697.
McCann, James A. , and Dominguez, Jorge I. 1998. “Mexicans React to Electoral Fraud and
Political Corruption: An Assessment of Public Opinion and Voting Behavior.” Electoral
Studies 17(4): 483–503.
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat . 1989. The Spirit of the Laws/ Montesquieu 1748. Anne
M. Cohler, Basia Carolyn Miller, and Harold Samuel Stone, trans, and eds. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Noonan, John T., Jr. 1984. Bribes. Berkeley: University of California Press.
O'Donnell, Guillermo . 1999. “Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies.” In A. Schedler
, L. Diamond and M.F. Plattner , eds., The Self Restraining State, Power and Accountability
in New Democracies, pp. 29–51. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Onuf, Nicholas G. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and
International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Onuf, Nicholas G. 1998. The Republican Legacy in International Thought. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Peters, Donald C. 1992. The Democratic System in the Eastern Caribbean. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ricardo, David . 1960. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. New York: E.P.
Dutton.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques . 1978. On the Social Contract. ed. R.D. Masters . New York: St.
Martin’s Press.

Salas, Luis , and Rico, Jose Ma . 1993. Administration of Justice in Latin America. Miami:
Center for the Administration of Justice, Florida International University.
Schedler, Andreas . 1999. “Conceptualizing Accountability.” In A. Schedler , L. Diamond and
M. Plattner , eds., The Self-Restraining State, Power and Accountability in New
Democracies, pp. 13–28. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Scott, James C. 1972. Comparative Political Corruption. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shugart, Mathew S. , and Mainwaring, Scott . 1997. “Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin
America: Rethinking the Terms of the Debate.” In M.S. Shugart and S. Mainwaring ,
eds.,Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, pp. 12–54. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Shumer, S. M. 1979. “Machiavelli: Republican Politics and Its Corruption.” Political Theory
7(1): 5–34.
Smith, Adam . 1937. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Modem Library.
Smith, Dwight C., Jr. 1980. “Paragons, Pariahs, and Pirates: A Spectrum-Based Theory of
Enterprise.” Crime and Delinquency 26(3): 358–386.
Sussman, Leonard R. 1999. The News of the Century, Press Freedom 1999. New York:
Freedom House.
Theobald, Robin . 1990. Corruption, Development and Underdevelopment. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Thurlow, Richard . 1995. The Secret State. Oxford: Blackwell.
Transparency International .1997. “1997 Corruption Perception Index.” Berlin, Germany:
Transparency International.
Transparency International . 1998. “1998 Corruption Perceptions Index.” Berlin, Germany:
Transparency International.
Transparency International . 1999. “1999 Bribe Payers Index, 1999 Corruption Perceptions
Index.” Berlin, Germany: Transparency International.
Weingast, Barry R. 1997. “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law.”
American Political Science Review 91(2): 245–263.
Wilson, Ronald C. 1989. Ancient Republicanism, Its Struggle for Liberty Against Corruption.
New York: Peter Lang.
Making Sense of the Conflict Between Mainland China and Taiwan
Acharya, Amitav . 1999. “International Relations Theory and Cross-Strait Relations.” Paper
presented at the International Forum on Peace and Security in the Taiwan Strait, Taipei,
Taiwan, 26–28 July.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1998. “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World
Politics 50(January): 324–348.
Culver, John , and Pillisbury, Michael . 1998. “SESSION 5: Defense Policy and Posture II.” In
Hans Binnendijk , and Ronald N. Montaperto , eds., Institute for National Strategic Studies,
National Defense University, http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/boks/china/chinacont.html.
Garver, John W. 1997. Face Off: China, the United States, and Taiwan’s Democratization.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Goldstein, Steven . 1999. “Terms of Engagement: Taiwan’s Mainland Policy.” In Alastair Iain
Johnston and Robert S. Ross , eds., Engaging China: The Management of an Emerging
Power, pp. 57–86. New York: Routledge.
Kowert, Paul . 1998. “Agent Versus Structure in the Construction of National Identity.” In V.
Kubálková , N. Onuf , and P. Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World,
pp. 101–122. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kubálková, Vendulka , Onuf, Nicholas , and Kowert, Paul , eds. 1998. International Relations
in a Constructed World. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, Nicholas . 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule of Social Theory and
International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Onuf, Nicholas . 1998. “Constructivism: A User’s Manual.” In V. Kubálková , N. Onuf , and P.
Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, pp. 58–78. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Shirk, Susan . 1997. “Asia-Pacific Regional Security: Balance of Power or Concert of
Powers?” In D.A. Lake and P. Morgan , eds., Regional Orders: Building Security in a New
World, pp. 245–270. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wendt, Alexander . 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics.” International Organization 46(Spring): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander . 1994. “Collective Identity Formation and the International State.”
American Political Science Review 88(June): 384–396.
Making Sense of the Conflict Between Mainland China and Taiwan
Ashley, Richard . 1987. “Foreign Policy as Political Performance.” International Studies
Notes 13(2): 51–55.
Ashley, Richard . 1988. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique.” Millenium: Journal of International Studies 17(2): 227–262.
Boyd, Charles . 1998. “Making Bosnia Work.” Foreign Affairs 77(1): 42–55.
Campbell, David . 1998a. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity, rev. ed. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Campbell, David . 1998b.National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia.
Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Connolly, William . 1991. Identity/Difference—Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Der Derrian, James . 1987. On Diplomacy—A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Esposito, John L. 1992. The Islamic Threat—Myth or Reality? New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hibbard, Scott W. , and David Little . 1997. Islamic Activism and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Washington, DC: USIP Press.
Lewis, Bernard . 1993. Islam and the West. New York: Oxford University Press.
Quandt, William . 1997. “Foreword.” In Scott W. Hibbard , and David Little , Islamic Activism
and US Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: USIP Press.
Ramet, Sabrina P. 1996. Balkan Babel—The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of
Tito to Ethnic War, 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, Edward W. 1981. Covering Islam. New York: Pantheon.
Shapiro, Michael J. 1988. The Politics of Representation—Writing Practices in Biography,
Photography, and Policy Analysis. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Walker, Rob B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weldes, Jutta . 1996. “Constructing National Interests.” European Journal of International
Relations 2(3): 275–318.
Commonsense Constructivism and Foreign Policy: A Critique of Rule-
Oriented Constructivism
Adler, Emmanuel . 1997. “Seizing the Middle Ground. Constructivism in World Politics.”
European Journal of International Relations 3(3): 319–363.
Katzenstein, Peter , Keohane, Robert , and Krasner, Stephen . 1998. “International
Organization and the Study of World Politics.” International Organization 52(4): 645–685.

Kubálková, Vendulka , Onuf, Nicholas , and Kowert, Paul , eds. 1998.International Relations
in a Constructed World. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Onuf, Nicholas . 1989. Worlds of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and
International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Pettman, Ralph . 2000. Commonsense Constructivism, or the Making of World Affairs.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ruggie, John . 1998. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the
Social Constructivist Challenge.” International Organization 52(4): 855–885.
Smith, Steve . 2000. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social
Science?” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2: 374–402.
Wendt, Alexander . 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Toward a Constructivist Theory of Foreign Policy
Adler, Emanuel . 1997. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.”
European Journal of International Relations 3(3): 319–363.
Anderson, Benedict . 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of
Nationalism. London: Verso.
Beasley, William G. 1987. Japanese Imperialism, 1894–1945. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1956. The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
Campbell, David . 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, David . 1993. Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics, and the Narratives of
the Gulf War. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Chafetz, Glenn . 1995. “The Political Psychology of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime.”
Journal of Politics 57(3): 743–775.
Checkel, Jeffrey . 1998. “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory.” World
Politics 50(2): 324–348.
Cottam, Richard . 1977. Foreign Policy Motivation: A General Theory and a Case Study.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Deudney, Daniel . 1996. “Ground Identity: Nature, Place, and Space in Nationalism.” In
Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil , eds., The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory,
pp. 129–145. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Deutsch, Karl . 1966. Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the
Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Doyle, Michael . 1983. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Parts I and II.”
Philosophy and Public Affairs 12(3 and 4): 205–235, 323–353.
Eden, Lynn . Forthcoming. Deconstructing Construction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Finnemore, Martha . 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Fukuyama, Francis . 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Garnett, Sherman . 1997. “Russia’s Illusory Ambitions.” Foreign Affairs 76(2): 61–76.
Gellner, Ernst . 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Goffman, Erving . 1969. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grieco, Joseph , 1988. “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the
Newest Liberal Institutionalism.” International Organization 42(3): 483–508.
Heider, Fritz . 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
Heikka, Henrikki . 1999. “Beyond Neorealism and Constructivism: Desire, Identity, and
Russian Foreign Policy.” In Ted Hopf , ed., Understandings of Russian Foreign Policy, pp.
57–107. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Herman, Robert G. 1996. “Identity, Norms, and National Security: The Soviet Foreign Policy
Revolution and the End of the Cold War.” In Peter J. Katzenstein , ed., The Culture of
National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, pp. 271–316. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Herrmann, Richard K. 1985. Perceptions and Behavior in Soviet Foreign Policy. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Herrmann, Richard K. 1986. “The Power of Perceptions in Foreign Policy Decision Making:
Do Views of the Soviet Union Determine the Policy Choices of American Leaders?”
American Journal of Political Science 30(4): 841–875.
Hogg, Michael , and Abrams, Dominic . 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. New York: Routledge.
Holsti, Kal J. 1970. “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy.” International
Studies Quarterly 14(3): 233–309.
Hopf, Ted , ed. 1999. Understandings of Russian Foreign Policy. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Howard, Judith , and Callero, Peter , eds. 1991. The Self-Society Dynamic. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Inoguchi, Takashi . 1994. Sekai Hendo no Mikata [The standpoint of global change]. Tokyo:
Chikuma Shobo.
Johnson, James . 1993. “Is Talk Really Cheap? Prompting Conversation Between Critical
Theory and Rational Choice.” American Political Science Review 87(1): 74–86.
Katzenstein, Peter J. , Keohane, Robert O. , and Krasner, Stephen D. 1998. “International
Organization and the Study of World Politics.” International Organization 52(4): 645–685.
Katzenstein, Peter J. , Keohane, Robert O. , and Krasner, Stephen D. eds. 1999. Exploration
and Contestation in the Study of World Politics. Boston: MIT Press.
Keohane, Robert . 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political
Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kier, Elizabeth . 1995. “Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars.”
International Security 19(4): 65–93.
Kier, Elizabeth . 1997. Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the
Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Klotz, Audie . 1995. Norms in International Politics: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Klugman, David . 1997. “Existentialism and Constructivism: A Bipolar Model of Subjectivity.”
Clinical Social Work Journal 25(3): 297–313.
Kowert, Paul . 1997. “Place, Politics, and International Identity.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 29–31
August.
Kowert, Paul . 1998. “Agent Versus Structure in the Construction of National Identity.” In
Kubálková, Onuf , and Kowert , eds., International Relations in a Constructed World, pp.
101–122. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kubálková, Onuf . 1998/1999. “National Identity: Inside and Out.” Security Studies 8(2/3):
1–34.
Kubálková, Onuf . 2000. “The Role of Culture and Identity in National Economic Crises.”
Ritsumeikan Kokusai Chiiki Kenkyu [Ritsumeikan Journal of International Relations and Area
Studies] 16: 53–70.
Kowert, Paul , and Legro, Jeffrey . 1996. “Norms, Identity, and Their Limits: A Theoretical
Reprise.” In Peter J. Katzenstein , ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity
in World Politics, pp. 451–497. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich . 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical
and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Lapid, Yosef , and Kratochwil, Friedrich , eds. 1996. The Return of Culture and Identity in IR
Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Legro, Jeffrey W. 1996. “Culture and Preferences in the International Cooperation Two-
Step.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 118–137.

Le Prestre, Philippe G. 1997. Role Quests in the Post-Cold War Era: Foreign Policies in
Transition. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Lustick, Ian S. 2000. “Agent-based Modelling of Collective Identity: Testing Constructivist
Theory.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3,
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/3/1/I.html.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McCall, George , and Simmons, Jerry . 1978. Identities and Interactions. New York: Free
Press.
Mercer, Jonathan . 1995. “Anarchy and Identity.” International Organization 49(2): 229–252.
Mertz, Elizabeth . 1994. “A New Social Constructionism for Sociolegal Studies.” Law and
Society Review 28(5): 1243–1265.
Modelski, George ; Poznanski, Kazimierz ; Farkas, Andrew ; Florini, Ann ; Hodgson, Geoffrey
; and Gilpin, Robert . 1996. “Special Issue: Evolutionary Paradigms in the Social Sciences.”
International Studies Quarterly 40(3): 315–431.
Naim, Tom . 1977. The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neonationalism. London: Verso.
Nash, Roderick . 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Onuf, Nicholas G. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and
International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Pettman, Ralph . 2000. Commonsense Constructivism, or the Making of World Affairs.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Posen, Barry . 1993. “Nationalism, the Mass Army, and Military Power.” International Security
18(2): 80–124.
Ringmar, Erik . 1996. Identity, Interest, and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden s
Intervention in the Thirty Years War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Risse, Thomas , Ropp, Stephen C. , and Sikkink, Kathryn , eds. 1999. The Power of Human
Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas . 1994. “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions,
Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization 48(2):
185–214.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas . 1995a. Cooperation Among Democracies: The European Influence
on U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas . 1995b. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-state Actors,
Domestic Structures, and International Institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Rubenstein, Diane . 1989. “Hate Boat, National Identity, and Nuclear Criticism.” In James
Der Derian and Michael Shapiro , eds., International/Inter textual Relations: Postmodern
Readings of World Politics, pp. 231–255. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sayer, Andrew . 1997. “Essentialism, Social Constructivism, and Beyond.” The Sociological
Review 45(3): 453–487.
Schimmelfennig, Frank . 1998/1999. “NATO Enlargement: A Constructivist Explanation.”
Security Studies 8(2/3): 198–234.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Spruyt, Hendrik . 1994. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Stryker, Sheldon . 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park,
CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
Stryker, Sheldon . 1987. “Identity Theory: Developments and Extensions.” In Krysia Yardley
and Terry Honess , eds., Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives, pp. 89–103. New
York: Wiley.
Sylvester, Christine . 1994. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern
Era. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, Henri . 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tilley, Virginia . 1997. “The Terms of the Debate: Untangling Language About Ethnicity and
Ethnic Movements.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 20(3): 497–522.
Tilly, Charles . 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Toby, Ronald P. 1985. “Contesting the Centre: International Sources of Japanese Identity.”
International History Review 7(3): 347–363.
Todorov, Tzvetan . 1984. The Conquest of America: the Question of the Other. Richard
Howard , trans. New York: Harper and Row.
Turner, Frederick Jackson . 1920. The Frontier in American History. New York: Holt.
Turner, John . 1982. “Toward a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group.” In Henri Tajfel ,
ed., Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, pp. 15–40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge.
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walker, Stephen . 1992. “Symbolic Interactionism and International Politics: Role Theory’s
Contribution to International Organization.” In Martha Cottam and Chih-yu Shih , eds.,
Contending Dramas: A Cognitive Approach to Post-War International Organizational
Processes, pp. 19–38. New York: Praeger.
Walker, Stephen , ed. 1987. Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Walt, Stephen M. 1991. “The Renaissance of Security Studies.” International Studies
Quarterly 35(2) 211–239.
Walt, Stephen M. . 1998. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign
Policy 110: 29–32.
Wendt, Alexander . 1992. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of
Power Politics.” International Organization 46(2): 391–425.
Wendt, Alexander . 1994. “Collective Identity Formation and the International State.”
American Political Science Review 88(2): 384–396.
Wendt, Alexander . 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Worchel, Stephen , and Austin, William G. , eds. 1986. Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Yee, Albert S. 1997. “Thick Rationality and the Missing ‘Brute Fact’: The Limits of Rationalist
Incorporations of Norms and Ideas.” Journal of Politics 59(4): 1001–1039.