NASP Workshop "Political Parties and Foreign Policy" (original) (raw)
Related papers
Foreign Policy Analysis, 2020
The positions of political parties in various foreign policy questions and how such ideological stances matter in foreign and security policy decision-making remain largely unexplored beyond the specific case of the United States. Reviewing the 'state of the art' in foreign policy analysis and comparative politics, this introductory article discusses the changing nature of both international politics and party systems and cleavages in Europe and beyond. It puts forward reasons why we should see different patterns of coalitions and party behaviour in security policy, on the one hand, and in international trade and foreign aid, on the other. The articles in this Special Issue have been deliberately chosen to capture different elements of 'partyness', from analysing party positions to actual behaviour by legislatures and governments to transnational party networks. Our main argument is that there are genuine ideological differences between political parties and that the impact of these competing ideologies is also discernible in foreign policy decisionmaking.
The Party Politics of Foreign and Security Policy
Foreign Policy Analysis, 2020
The positions of political parties in various foreign policy questions and how such ideological stances matter in foreign and security policy decision-making remain largely unexplored beyond the specific case of the United States. Reviewing the “state of the art” in foreign policy analysis and comparative politics, this introductory article discusses the changing nature of both international politics and party systems and cleavages in Europe and beyond. It puts forward reasons why we should see different patterns of coalitions and party behavior in security policy, on the one hand, and in international trade and foreign aid, on the other hand. The articles in this Special Issue have been deliberately chosen to capture different elements of “partyness,” from analyzing party positions to actual behavior by legislatures and governments to transnational party networks. Our main argument is that there are genuine ideological differences between political parties and that the impact of th...
Foreign Policy as Battlefield: A Study of National Interest and Party Motives
Scandinavian Political Studies, 2000
In no other policy arena are party unity and national unity considered as critical as in security and foreign policy. Party unity on foreign policy is viewed as a national security strategy of particular importance in times of international crisis and uncertainty, or as an expression of party strategy and ideological considerations. Through an empirical study of programs, congresses, voters and ideology of the Swedish parties 1945^1993, we show that the presence or absence of tension in the international system does not a¡ect the inclination of parties to take issue on matters of foreign policy. We also show that parties argue just as much about issues that are central to Swedish security policy as they do about issues that do not directly a¡ect national interest. The main sources of party disagreement over foreign policy seem to be ideologically motivated.
Global political parties: toward a research programme
2006
It has become increasingly obvious that world politics cannot be reduced to interstate relations. The multiplicity of seemingly new actors can widen the horizons of what politics may mean in the globalizing world. Oft-cited examples of these actors include global corporations, networks of non-governmental organizations and transnational social movements.
2012
This paper explores how party competition influences states' foreign policy choices. I argue that party competition has stronger explanatory power than it is often given credit for. To examine this dynamic, I discuss some alternative explanations of policy choices, then examine two cases studies and finally discuss implications that can be drawn from those case studies. The two case studies that will be analyzed are the British Labour government's decision in 1999 to pass stricter immigration controls and the Turkish AKP government's decision in 2006 to adopt a more hardline approach with regards to Cyprus. These two case studies have been chosen because many of the other variables that are often advanced as explaining policy choices would have predicted a different choice than was actually made. If party competition can override these concerns, then its explanatory power can be asserted with greater confidence. 1 It is fruitless to debate whether domestic politics really determine international relations, or the reverse. The answer to that question is clearly 'both, sometimes'. The more interesting questions are 'When?' and 'How?' Robert Putnam (1988, 427). Some scholars view states as unitary, rational actors and operate under the assumption that the state-as-actor functions like a black box on the international stagein that one need not examine internal motivations to explain a state's behavior (Hilsman,
Toward a Foreign Policy for the Democratic Party
International Studies Review
"Donald Trump has pursued hegemony more openly than any of his predecessors," writes Richard Ned Lebow. "However, the goals he seeks are not so different from those of prior administrations" (p. 9). Lebow is far from the first to criticize American foreign policy or the beltway blob. However, A Democratic Foreign Policy is comfortably one of the most stimulating contributions to the latest wave of this rapidly expanding genre (e.g., Mearsheimer 2018; Walt 2018). In it, Lebow provides a compelling, readable, and often ruthless critique of the assumptions and modus operandi of what he refers to as the "national security establishment," as well as a recipe for a more progressive foreign policy. The purpose of the book, Lebow explains, is to outline a new foreign policy for a Democratic Party that appears to be moving left. Lebow begins his analysis with a puzzle: How can it be that the mightiest state the world has ever seen seems less and less able to persuade others to do what it wants? The answer, he suggests, lies in the establishment's counterproductive quest for hegemony. So far, so familiar. What most sets his book apart from other critiques of American foreign policy is its more far-reaching, and ultimately more satisfying, diagnosis. Most critics limit their interrogations to specific policies, choices, or administrations. Lebow, in contrast, demonstrates the deep-rooted ideological connections between foreign ventures (e.g., the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which most analysts now agree was a disastrous mistake) and long-running practices (e.g., nuclear deterrence, which most American observers continue to see as necessary and uncontroversial). What unites these otherwise disparate phenomena, he argues, is a culture that privileges threats over cooperation and stubborn resolve over careful analysis. As Lebow shows, American foreign policy has been powerfully influenced by southern honor codes, religious fervor, and the cultivation of respect for authority. In addition, Lebow maintains, the political process has been manipulated by a group of people, think tanks, and industries that stand to profit from conflict and belligerence. Any progressive government must wrest back control from these vested interests. Building on his previous work on tragedy, Lebow outlines a thoughtful alternative path. Since there is no way of adjudicating between clashing value systems, we are compelled to eschew hubris and find ways to live with differences at home and abroad, while minimizing the fallout of any conflicts. Here, too, the author Egeland, Kjølv.