Systemic, Domestic, and Elite Constraints: A Neoclassical Realist Examination of the Relative Decline in U.S. Power and Obama’s Pivot to Asia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Understanding US Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Analysis
Novus Orbis: Siyaset Bilimi ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 2022
From the point of view of international relations theory, understanding America and the world is mostly about the world: The United States (the US) is a vital actor, but it acts mostly in response to international trends. However, from the point of view of theories of American politics and domestic politics theories of foreign policy, America and the world is mostly about America: American actions are primarily the result of domestic political institutions and the political processes they help to structure. In that manner, this article surveys three selected theories of international relations, namely, realism, liberalism and constructivism and three selected theories of American politics, namely, mass politics, psychological explanations, and institutional approaches to provide a thorough analysis of US foreign policy studies. Further, it argues that international relations theories usually explain why US foreign policy acts in a particular way while American politics theories explain why US foreign policy specifically acts that way and why it does not act in an alternative way. Hence, this article argues that while international relations theories are useful to explain general trends in US foreign policy, American politics theories are better to capture the complexity of US foreign policy.
New Thinking in Liberal International Relations Theory: Toward a Liberal Theory of Foreign Policy
APSA Conference, 2011
One of the most vibrant research programs in international relations (IR) is neoclassical realism. This realist approach to foreign policy argues that the most important factor in shaping state behavior is the structure of the international system, but neoclassical realist also argue that domestic factors act as intervening variables to shape the timing and intensity of a state’s reaction to structural pressures and incentives. Liberal theory provides a means for challenging neoclassical realism. From a liberal perspective, domestic norms and institutions are the most important factors in shaping state behavior. Liberal political institutions and norms tend to act as a restraint on state power in general and foreign policy specifically. Liberal institutions such as separation of powers, federalism, and democratic elections make it more difficult for political leaders to enact policies that require substantial national resources in all policy areas, from major health care reform to large-scale imperialism. In fact, these institutions make it difficult to accomplish any major national policy change. Liberal norms reinforce institutional restraint. Individuals and collectives that have internalized liberal norms will view the use of state power with suspicion and favor political leaders and policies that minimize the use of state power. In many cases, the incentives and pressures of domestic political structure are stronger than the incentives and pressures of the international system and therefore will be more decisive in shaping foreign policy. Drawing on various existing strands of IR scholarship on domestic political structure and state action, this paper develops a liberal approach to the study of foreign policy and demonstrates its potential value by applying it to the foreign policies of rising powers—Great Britain, Germany, Japan, the United States, and the USSR—between the mid 1800s and WWII. The main finding is that illiberal or non-liberal rising powers are much more expansionist than liberal states. These findings may have relevance for the foreign policies of current rising powers like China, India, and Brazil.
The Weakening of the Hegemon and the Future of the Liberal International Order
Journal of Politics and Law, 2020
The hereby paper presents a theoretical approach to the U.S.–China geopolitical rivalry as the process of dispersion of power from the hegemon to the challenger [Allison] that may toward, through the sphere of influence fragmentation processes, to the polycentricity of the international relations system. In this work the author presents a new theoretical approach to the U.S.–China political rivalry understood as a key element of a process of changing the model of the global hegemonic leadership, shaped most fully since 1991. The paper presents the concept of two theoretical levels – the rational strategy and the political vibrancy – which are a necessary context for identifying the nature of given decision-making processes of the main subjects of contemporary international relations. Thus, through the abovementioned concept the sino-american relations are explained within the methods that are being used by states with particular emphasis on analyzing the operations of the People'...
Hard Power in a Soft Package: The ‘True’ Conservatism of Obama Leadership in Foreign Policy
Analyzing President Obama’s foreign policy and its global impact is no easy task. The early presidency of Obama has been marked by vicious attacks from the right, deep disappointment from the left, and something like indifference from the international community. This is understandable when the main argument is entertained: the ex-pectations of Obama’s global positions have not met reality mainly because they are more closely aligned with a cautious and considered ‘true’ conservatism, something no side (left, right, international) anticipated. The consequences of this becomes more than just about election results but has significant potential influence on the funda-mental debates between soft and hard power. Keywords: Obama, Foreign Policy, Conservatism, Electoral Politics, International Co-operation
Derek Beach's Foreign Policy Analysis book summary; first 8 chapters, excluding constructivism out. The source of national foreign policy preference formation is divided into theories that suggest that the primary determinants of a state's foreign policy goals are system level factors external to the state (exogenous). And also they suggest that state level factors also matter to varying degrees (indigenous). ‐Structural realists agree that national preferences are based upon the need to survive in anarchy, but they disagree between them whether state goals are mainly defensive or whether the anarchic system pushes them to adopt a more offensive foreign policy goals. ‐Liberals in turn, are split between those who analyze the impact of the level of interdependence upon what states wants, and those that investigate the effects that institution‐rich environments have upon foreign policy goals. ‐Constructivists argue that the ideas embedded in different " cultures " of the system can impact on what states want and even on the very foreign policy identity of the state. Identities constitute how a state conceives its interests.
International Studies. Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (2019), pp. 11–31, 2019
The aim of this article is to present the most important voices on the role of the US in the international order during Donald Trump’s presidency in the debate held in the Foreign Affairs. The authors assume that Foreign Affairs expresses the opinions of the most crucial organisation bringing together the elites of American foreign affairs – the Council on Foreign Relations. The paper proposes a hypothesis according to which there is a difference of opinion due to the adopted theoretical perspective regarding Trump’s role in the destruction of the liberal international order among the American power elites, even though they agree that the ideological conflict between democratic and authoritarian countries around the world is escalating.