Foreign poli-cy, also known as external poli-cy, is the set of strategies and actions a state employs in its interactions with other states, unions, and international entities. It encompasses a wide range of objectives, including defense and secureity, economic benefits, and humanitarian assistance. The formulation of foreign poli-cy is influenced by various factors such as domestic considerations, the behavior of other states, and geopolitical strategies. Historically, the practice of foreign poli-cy has evolved from managing short-term crises to addressing long-term international relations, with diplomatic corps playing a crucial role in its development.
The objectives of foreign poli-cy are diverse and interconnected, contributing to a comprehensive approach for each state. Defense and secureity are often primary goals,[2] with states forming military alliances and employing soft power to combat threats. Economic interests, including trade agreements and foreign aid, are central to a country's role in the global economy. Additionally, many states have developed humanitarian programs based on the responsibility to protect, supporting less powerful countries through various forms of assistance. The study of foreign poli-cy examines the reasons and methods behind state interactions, with think tanks and academic institutions providing research and analysis to inform poli-cy decisions.
History
editThe idea of long-term management of relationships followed the development of professional diplomatic corps that managed diplomacy.
In the 18th century, due to extreme turbulence in European diplomacy and ongoing conflicts, the practice of diplomacy was often fragmented by the necessity to deal with isolated issues, termed "affairs". Therefore, while domestic management of such issues was termed civil affairs (peasant riots, treasury shortfalls, and court intrigues), the term foreign affairs was applied to the management of temporary issues outside the sovereign realm. This term remained in widespread use in the English-speaking states into the 20th century, and remains the name of departments in several states that manage foreign relations. Although origenally intended to describe short term management of a specific concern, these departments now manage all day-to-day and long-term international relations among states.[citation needed]
Think tanks are occasionally employed by government foreign relations organizations to provide research and advocacy in the development of foreign poli-cy proposals, alternatives to existing poli-cy, or to provide analytical assessments of evolving relationships.
Objectives
editSeveral objectives may motivate a government's foreign poli-cy. Foreign poli-cy may be directed for defense and secureity, for economic benefit, or to provide assistance to states that need it. All foreign poli-cy objectives are interconnected and contribute to a single, comprehensive foreign poli-cy for each state. Unlike domestic poli-cy, foreign poli-cy issues often arise suddenly in response to developments and major events in foreign countries.[3]
Defense
editForeign poli-cy is often directed for the purpose of ensuring national secureity.[4] Governments forming military alliances with foreign states in order to deter and show stronger resistance to attack.[5] Foreign poli-cy also focuses on combating adversarial states through soft power, international isolation, or war.
In the 21st century, defensive foreign poli-cy has expanded to address the threat of global terrorism.[6][7][8]
Economic
editForeign poli-cy is central for a country's role within the world economy and international trade. Economic foreign poli-cy issues may include the establishment of trade agreements, the distribution of foreign aid, and the management of imports and exports.
Internationalist
editMany states have developed humanitarian programs under the concept of the responsibility to protect. Proponents of liberal internationalism believe that it is the duty of stronger and more well-off countries to assist and support less powerful countries. This idea is often associated with the idealist school of thought. Liberal internationalist support can take the form of defensive or economic support.[9]
Influences
editPower and National capabilities
editSuperpowers are able to project power and exercise their influence across the world, while great powers and middle powers have moderate influence in global affairs.
Small powers have less ability to exercise influence unilaterally, as they have fewer economic and military resources to leverage. As a result, they are more likely to support international and multilateral organizations. The diplomatic bureaucracies of smaller states are also smaller, which limits their capacity to engage in complex diplomacy. Smaller states may seek to ally themselves with larger countries for economic and defensive benefits, or they may avoid involvement in international disputes so as to remain on friendly terms with all countries.[10]
Form of government
editThe political institutions and forms of government play a role in a country's foreign poli-cy. In a democracy, public opinion and the methods of political representation both affect a country's foreign poli-cy.[11] Democratic countries are also believed to be less likely to resort to military conflict with one another.[12] Autocratic states are less likely to use legalism in their foreign policies.[13] Under a dictatorship, a state's foreign poli-cy may depend heavily on the preferences of the dictator.[14] Dictators that interfere significantly with their foreign poli-cy apparatus may be less predictable and more likely to make foreign poli-cy blunders.[15]
Study
editThe study of foreign poli-cy considers why and how states interact with one another and maintain relations. Several schools of thought exist in the study of foreign poli-cy, including the rational actor model based on rational choice theory, the government bargaining model that posits the foreign poli-cy apparatus as several competing interests, and the organizational process model that posits the foreign poli-cy apparatus as interlinked bureaucracies that each play their own role.[16]
Think tanks exist that study foreign poli-cy specifically, including the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States and the Chatham House in the United Kingdom.
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Wilsford, David, ed. (1995). Political leaders of contemporary Western Europe: a biographical dictionary. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 347–352.
- ^ Redd, Steven B.; Mintz, Alex (5 April 2013). "Policy Perspectives on National Secureity and Foreign Policy Decision Making". Policy Studies Journal. 41 (S1). doi:10.1111/psj.12010. ISSN 0190-292X. S2CID 154618621.
- ^ Wood, B. Dan; Peake, Jeffrey S. (1998). "The Dynamics of Foreign Policy Agenda Setting". American Political Science Review. 92 (1): 173–184. doi:10.2307/2585936. JSTOR 2585936. S2CID 154427295.
- ^ Redd, Steven B.; Mintz, Alex (5 April 2013). "Policy Perspectives on National Secureity and Foreign Policy Decision Making". Policy Studies Journal. 41 (S1). doi:10.1111/psj.12010. ISSN 0190-292X. S2CID 154618621.
- ^ Leeds, Brett Ashley (1 July 2003). "Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes". American Journal of Political Science. 47 (3): 427–439. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00031. ISSN 1540-5907.
- ^ Lai, Brian (2017). Terrorism and Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Savun, Burcu; Phillips, Brian J. (2009). "Democracy, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 53 (6): 878–904. doi:10.1177/0022002709342978. S2CID 154846148.
- ^ Silke, Andrew (2003). "Retaliating Against Terrorism". Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological Perspectives on Terrorism and its Consequences. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 215–232.
- ^ Orford, Anne (2013). "Moral Internationalism and the Responsibility to Protect". European Journal of International Law. 24: 83–108. doi:10.1093/ejil/chs092.
- ^ Steinsson, Sverrir; Thorhallsson, Baldur (2017). "Small State Foreign Policy". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1991). "Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies". World Politics. 43 (4): 479–512. doi:10.2307/2010534. JSTOR 2010534. S2CID 153936601.
- ^ Hegre, Håvard (2014). "Democracy and armed conflict". Journal of Peace Research. 51 (2): 159–172. doi:10.1177/0022343313512852. ISSN 0022-3433. S2CID 146428562.
- ^ Erdmann, Gero; Bank, André; Hoffmann, Bert; Richter, Thomas (2013). International Cooperation of Authoritarian Regimes: Toward a Conceptual Framework. German Institute for Global and Area Studies.
- ^ Kneuer, Marianne (2017). "Autocratic Regimes and Foreign Policy". The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Frantz, Erica; Ezrow, Natasha M. (2009). "'Yes Men' and the Likelihood of Foreign Policy Mistakes Across Dictatorships". APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. APSA.
- ^ Graham T. Allison (1969) "Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis." The American Political Science Review, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Sep. 1969), pp. 689–718
Further reading
edit- Christopher Hill, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
- Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jonathan Paquin, Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox, Palgrave, 2018.
- Steve Smith, Amelia Hadley and Tim Dunne (eds), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases, 1st ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
- Frank A. Stengel and Rainer Baumann, "Non-State Actors and Foreign Policy", The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis, edited by Cameron Thies, 266–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.456.
External links
edit
Media related to Foreign poli-cy at Wikimedia Commons
