What is Foreign Policy: I.INTRODUCTION: A.

Definition:

1.Traditional Concept of Foreign Policy:

The sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually a
state) in international relations” (Hill 2003, 3).
This definition encompasses various aspects, including the content of foreign policy
(e.g., diplomatic agreements, trade relations), the policies pursued by states, and the
decision-making processes involved in formulating and implementing foreign policy.
(Hudson 2012).
a.Secrecy is needed
Interactions with other sovereign entities occur within competitive or adversarial
contexts. Secrecy is deemed essential to safeguard sensitive information, preserve
diplomatic advantage, and thwart adversaries from exploiting vulnerabilities. b.Criticism
State Centric assumption ignores the Non state actors
Revolves around the actions of states, neglecting non-state actors' increasing influence
in global affairs. In today's interconnected world, entities like multinational corporations,
NGOs, and international organizations play significant roles in shaping international
relations.
Domestic Vs foreign Policy as historical construct and not natural
Scholars challenge the traditional view of foreign policy, which separates inside and
outside the state, arguing it's a historical construct, not natural. They view foreign policy
as a performance creating boundaries, emerging around 1600 from the analysis of
interests ('reason of state') by 1650. Additionally, scholars emphasize that foreign policy
has always been influenced by issues of identity and difference between states. Thus,
Richard Ashley (1987, 51) suggested that foreign policy should be considered as “a
specific sort of boundary-producing political performance.

2. Modern definition of foreign Policy:

Foreign Policy refers to the sum total of principles, interests, and objectives which a
country promote while interacting with other countries. Even though there are certain
basic features of foreign policy it is not a fixed concept. Changes with the changing
international conditions.

3.Definitions by some Scholars:

a.Prof.Joseph Frankel: “Foreign Policy consists of decisions and and actions which
involves to some appreciable extent relations between states and others”.
b.Rodee: “Foreign Policy involves the implementation of group principles which shape
the behavior pattern of a state which negotiating with other states to protect or further
it's interest”.
c.Hudson: The strategy or approach chosen by the national government to achieve its
goals in relations with external entities.(Hudson, 2008, p.12).

3.Two contrasting perspectives within the discipline of international relations regarding

foreign policy:

a.First Perspective: it sees foreign policy as carrying a self-evident meaning: as

an abstract expression of relations between political entities.
"Broadly interpreted, foreign policy is about the fundamental issue of how
organized groups, at least in part strangers to each other, interrelate." (Hill 2003,
xvii).

This definition shows that foreign policy is seen as something that can be
understood and studied across different times and places. It's seen as separate from
other types of policies and plays a unique role in how different groups interact with
each other.
b.Second Perspective:
Foreign policy isn't just a bridge between separate realms but something that both
divided and joined the inside and the outside, the state and the interstate system”
(Campbell 1998, 60).
In this understanding, foreign policy emerged sometime during the seventeenth century.
It was the producer, and the product, of the modern state and state system.

B.Importance of Foreign Policy in International Relations

II. THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS A.Traditional

Approaches:
The three main ways of thinking about international relations—idealism, realism, and
the international society approach—do not focus on the decision-making process.
These theories explain international events and sees decision making as determined
and influenced by the critical determinants of foreign policy found in international
politics. The structural condition of anarchy however mediated by morality, laws is
considered as the starting critical determinant of foreign policy in international politics
that influence decision making processes. I.Idealism:
Idealists thinkers inspired by the liberal conception of human nature and conflict
searched for mechanism into the international society for preventing war and building
democracy hence this is peace enhancing.
Idealists believed that understanding the potential of humanity and the obstacles
presented by current structures, both within countries and in the international arena,
was crucial in explaining foreign policy decisions. They thought that by envisioning a
better future and identifying barriers to achieving it, they could understand foreign policy
actions.
2.Realism
Realism emerged as the leading theory in international relations as idealist thinking
declined.
a.Morgenthau
i.Determinants of State behavior:
Human self-interested nature
He claims that the inherent and self-interested nature of human beings, when faced with
a structure of international anarchy, results in states maximizing one thing, power.
Power, he claims isn't confined to only one fixed meaning but explicitly discussed the
economic dimensions of power that associated the concept of power with national
interest.
Persuit of national interest (power, security) as a universal explanation for state
behavior:
Morgenthau argues that the concept of national interest can universally explain why
states behave as they do. States act in ways that prioritize their own interests, which are
often associated with power and security.
Systemic rationale ( balance of power) determines state behavior:
Morgenthau's classification of foreign policies into status quo, imperialist, and prestige
categories reflects a systemic rationale.
He finds the sources of foreign policy in the situation of the state in the international
system.
He sees the balance of power as the primary determinant of state behavior. Criticism it
overlooks other factors influencing foreign policy decisions, such as domestic politics,
ideology, and individual leaders' perceptions.
Lack of Objective Definition Morgenthau's key concepts of power, balance of power, and
national interest lack objective definitions, undermining his claim to objectivity.
Neglect of Domestic Factors
Politics Among Nations fails to link domestic politics with the international system,
focusing instead on national power resources and ideology.
Fixed Notion of Human Nature Morgenthau's theory assumes a fixed human nature but
fails to explain variations in state behavior or why some states are expansionist while
others are not.
b.Waltzian neorealism:
Supreme skill of the foreign-policy decision-maker lies in recognizing the signals sent by
the system.
The decision-maker is a skilled craftsman rather
than a creative artist.

From a neorealist perspective the nature of a domestic regime, whether

liberaldemocratic, authoritarian or totalitarian is of relatively little significance.
A state is a state is an egoistic actor attempting to survive under the anarchy.
Criticism:
Regime type is insignificant in policy making, system matters.
From almost every viewpoint, except perhaps Chomsky's, the idea that the type of
government doesn't matter seems ridiculous. It's hard to believe that leaders from liberal
democracies would respond to outside events the same way as leaders from military
coups or totalitarian regimes.
Domestic, social, economic, political conditions of a country are irrelevant to foreign
policy is impkausible
There may be pressures pointing all the regimes in the same direction but it is inherently
implausible that domestic social and economic structure is irrelevant to foreign policy –
that the shape of a nation’s society has no influence on its international behaviour.
Democratic peace theory challenges neorelaist stance
The 'democratic peace' hypothesis suggests that stable liberal-democratic states don't
go to war with each other, a notion challenging neorealist thinking. Initially popularized
by Michael Doyle, it gained traction in the 1990s with empirical researchers using
statistical techniques to refine it. If established, it would revive traditional foreign-policy
studies centered on institutions, public opinion, and decision-making. Critics, notably
neorealists and Chomskyans, oppose it due to its potential to undermine their positions.
Democratic peace theory was criticized for this peacefulness between countries is
because of some other factor than the regime type.
Domestic Vs foreign Policies
Realist theory distinguishes between domestic and foreign policy, emphasizing that the
state possesses authority and means to enforce domestic policies, while foreign policy
outcomes result from interdependent decision-making without guaranteed authority or
means. We can distinguish two aspects of the study of foreign policy. The way in which
foreign policy is formulated is similar to the way in which domestic policy is formulated.
The way in which foreign policy is implemented that is different from the way in which
domestic policy is implemented.
3.Constructivism
Constructivism emphasizes the role of ideas, identities, and norms in shaping foreign
policy. It suggests that states' behavior is not solely determined by material factors like
power or security concerns but also influenced by socially constructed understandings
of the world. According to constructivism, foreign policy decisions are shaped by states'
perceptions of their own identity, the identities of other actors, and the norms that
govern their interactions. Constructivists argue that changes in beliefs, values, and
identities can lead to shifts in foreign policy behavior, as states adapt to new social
contexts and norms within the international system. Overall, constructivism highlights
the importance of ideational factors in understanding state behavior and foreign policy
outcomes. 4.Marxism
Marxist perspectives on foreign policy emphasize the role of economic factors, class
interests, and power dynamics in shaping state behavior. According to Marxism, foreign
policy serves the interests of the ruling class within a capitalist society, primarily aimed
at protecting and expanding capitalist economic relations, securing access to resources
and markets, and maintaining dominance over working-class populations both
domestically and internationally. Marxists argue that imperialism, characterized by the
exploitation of weaker nations for economic gain, is inherent to the capitalist system and
drives the foreign policies of powerful capitalist states. Additionally, Marxist analysis
highlights the role of class struggle and international solidarity among oppressed
classes in shaping resistance movements and alternative foreign policy agendas aimed
at challenging capitalist hegemony and promoting social justice on a global scale.
B.Behaviorlist methods:
Centrality of states
Singer, who calls for an explicit choice of analysis ( individual, state, international
system) to advance theory development in International relations, implicitly assumes
that the state is the primary unit of analysis.
John Vasques clearly illustrated that this assumption ( state as level of analysis)
pervades the behavioralist study of international relations.
Despite criticisms and dissatisfaction with the realist perspective, the behavioral
movement, with its diverse range of methodologies and epistemologies, tends to
maintain this assumption. Essentially, regardless of the theoretical or methodological
variations within the behavioral approach, there's a general consensus that the focus
should be on understanding and explaining the foreign policies of sovereign states.

Second Image or level of analysis: Systemic Perspectives on Sovereign State

Foreign Policy Behavior:
The extensive literature developed during the late 1950s and 1960s aimed to explain
the foreign policy behavior of sovereign states from a systems viewpoint. This
perspective focused on understanding how various factors, both internal and external,
influenced a state's foreign policy decisions and actions. It emphasized analyzing the
interactions between states within the international system to comprehend the dynamics
shaping their foreign policies.
1.Models of International behavior and models of polarity Model of international
behavior, developed by Morton Kaplan, Richard Rosecrance and Kenneth Waltz and
models of polarity shared a common assumption of foreign policy behavior, one that is
central to realism.
a.Deterministic assumption of foreign policy behavior

Key areas of foreign policy were essentially determined by the structure of the
international system.

i.Polar structure of the international system is crucial for explaining characteristic

behaviors of states. This implies that the distribution of power and the nature of
relationships within the system shape states' strategic calculations and foreign policy
choices
Structure of the international system, whether bipolar or multipolar, imposes certain
"rules" of behavior on states. In a bipolar world, for example, these rules would differ
from those in a multipolar system, leading to distinct characteristic behaviors among
states.
ii.The structural condition of anarchy within the international system as both a given and
theoretically determining factor. iii.Criticism:
System view of foreign policy
System as determining impact on states
Both realism and behaviorism are overmechanistsic.
System has a determining impact on the units or states comprising it.
Both approaches don't consider People and the decision making process. In the
language of Singer’s level of analysis problem, they imply that states are
homogeneous and the system has a determining impact on the states. This
perspective is significant for some forms of international behavior but very problematic
from a state perspective.
This system view of foreign policy overemphasizes the impact of system but focusing on
the decision making processes underemphasized the impact of the system.
The fact that multipolar systems are not accompanied by the level of ideological rigidity
in foreign policy behavior that applies in bipolar systems is, clearly, inexplicable from a
state perspective
The fact that bipolar systems are marked by forms of behavior different from those of
multi polar systems are likewise inexplicable from a state perspective. In short, it
appears that certain aspects of foreign policy behavior may be more economically
explained
from the systems level than from the state level.
2. Comparative foreign policy Approach:
In 1960s, this approach emerged to analyze foreign policy behavior. One of the major
growth areas in the study of International relations in the era of behaviorism.
This paradigm shift involved breaking away from traditional methods and beliefs in
studying foreign policy.
The new paradigm operated on the belief that all nations' foreign policy behaviors could
be compared, and that patterns in these behaviors were influenced by factors such as
size, wealth, and political accountability.
The CFP approach diverged from previous methods by emphasizing a different kind of
analysis of foreign policy behavior.
Rosenau's paper served as a foundational document for the CFP approach, outlining its
motivations and principles, thus playing a pivotal role in its development.
3. Graham Alison models:
III. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON FOREIGN POLICY
A.Evolution of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy, built upon the evolving meanings of "foreign" and "policy," is believed to
have emerged in the 18th century. However, it's essential to determine if it introduced a
novel concept or simply redefined existing practices.
1.Evolution of Politics and Policy:
The evolution of policy and politics has seen significant changes since the Renaissance.
Initially, during Renaissance politics was seen as the "art of the city" or civil philosophy,
and as a noble endeavor, often associated with civil philosophy and the governance of
cities. However, with the rise of the reason of state doctrine, politics became perceived
as morally ambiguous, with considerations of state interest sometimes overriding ethical
concerns. This shift reflects a broader evolution in the perception of governance and the
role of the state in society.
a.Evolution of the concepts of politics and policy, particularly in the English
language: Dictionary definitions evolved:
Initially, in Bailey's dictionary from 1737, "policy" was broadly defined as "Craft, Subtlety;
a prudent managing of Affairs; also the Art of governing a Kingdom or Commonwealth."
This encompassed both personal conduct and state governance, indicating an
undifferentiated view of politics and policy.
However, by the mid-18th century, with Fenning's definition in 1763 and Dr. Johnson's in
1768, there was a notable shift. "Policy" became primarily associated with governance
concerning foreign powers. This reflects a growing recognition of the distinctiveness of
foreign affairs and the need for specialized approaches in dealing with international
relations.
2. Emergence of the term ‘foreign’:
The term "foreign" emerged in the thirteenth century, initially serving as a general term
indicating something as "being on the outside of" or "stemming from the outside." Until
the seventeenth century, it had multiple meanings, with "outside the country" being just
one interpretation. However, by the eighteenth century, dictionaries such as Bailey's
(1737) defined "foreign" as "outlandish, strange, not agreeable to the Purpose or Matter
in Hand," with references primarily related to law or economics. In Dr. Johnson's (1768)
dictionary, the first listed meaning was "[n]ot of this country; not domestic." This reflects
a shift towards a more explicit association of "foreign" with entities outside of the state.
3.Emergence of Foreign Affairs:
In the seventeenth century, the term "foreign affairs" emerged, referring to matters
abroad and handling matters concerning other polities. The Privy Council committee for
foreign affairs, established during this time, dealt with various issues, including
alliances, treaties, royal marriage negotiations, and military matters like arming the
militia and employing the navy. While there was imperfect overlap with what we consider
foreign affairs today, the committee handled pressing and secret state activities,
indicating a desire for secrecy. This desire for secrecy led to the differentiation of foreign
affairs from other policy areas, although a separate policy field concerning foreign affairs
did not yet exist.
4.Emergence of External Policy:
In the seventeenth century, the term "external" was closely related to the concept of
being outside or outward, and it was often used in composite terms like "external policy."
For example, "external policy" distinguished between the corporeal body of a church
and what was external to it. This notion of a body politic, whether applied to the church
or the state, implied an undivided entity without a clear distinction between the state and
society.
In the early 1700s, people saw a clear difference between how a country managed its
affairs inside and outside its borders. "Internal parts of government" referred to running
things at home, while "external parts of government" dealt with foreign relations.
However, the idea of handling foreign matters didn't consider any divisions within the
country. The term "foreign policy" also came about during this time, but it meant
something different—it included both the practices of other countries and how foreigners
behaved. It wasn't until changes within a country forced a need for different approaches
that foreign policy became a practical concept.
While there was a recognition of the difference between internal and external state
matters in the seventeenth century, it didn't automatically lead to the creation of what we
now understand as foreign policy. This is because the centralized authority of monarchs
and the lack of a clear distinction between internal and external affairs meant that the
concept of foreign policy didn't fully emerge until later in history.
IV.DECISION MAKING PROCESS
The decision-making process in foreign policy involves identifying issues, analyzing
options, and selecting the most suitable course of action to address international
challenges, followed by the implementation and evaluation of the chosen policy. Origin
of foreign-policy decision-making approaches: American behavioral scientists in
the 1950s aimed to operationalize the concept of national interest.
Classificatory schemas:They developed large-scale classificatory schemas. These
schemas attempted to encompass all factors influencing decision-making, from mass
media influence to individual personalities and socio-psychological factors. limitations:
Mere classification doesn't provide explanation or predictive power. Filling all factors into
a schema is complex. Explanatory models:
Evolution towards explanatory models: Essence of Decision, Graham Allison's 1971
study of the Cuban Missile Crisis, provided a model simplifying the myriad factors
involved in decision-making.

A.Formulation of Foreign Policy

Traditional foreign-policy formulation involves identifying and articulating the national
interest concerning specific issues, such as the changing dynamics in Europe pre-1914.
Examples
The British foreign-policy establishment adapted its stance due to perceived shifts in
power dynamics, transitioning focus from traditional enemies like France to emerging
challengers like Germany.
In the 1940s, the United States shifted from isolationism to embracing peace-time
alliances, marking a significant reversal. Understanding the reasons behind this
transformation involves examining the historical context and geopolitical factors
influencing U.S. foreign policy decisions
1.General theory of foreign policy making: Generalization about foreign policy
formulation can be best achieved by breaking down the processes of foreign policy
making into a series of decisions. Each decision can in turn be analyzed to see what
factors were influential in which circumstances.
The formulation of foreign policy entails the development of strategic objectives,
diplomatic initiatives, and international engagement strategies aimed at advancing
national interests and achieving specific goals on the global stage
2.Approaches
a.Foreign Policy Analysis:
The influential framework for Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) was developed in 1954 by
Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin, focusing on analyzing decision-making processes within
states.
i.Working assumption of FPA:
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) operates under the premise that states exist in two
distinct environments: internal and external. Internally, the state interacts with
institutions within its territory, while externally, it engages with other states. Conventional
International Relations theory posits that states are consistently involved in both
environments, shaping policies domestically and internationally to pursue their interests.

The study of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is often seen as the primary source for
theories about how countries behave in their foreign affairs.viewing states as a group
and aims to understand their behavior by analyzing decision-making processes.

Critics argue that the traditional state-centric approach of FPA is outdated due to the
emergence of new actors and economic forces and other systemic factors in
international relations.The recognition of non-state actors and limitations of state-centric
theories have posed challenges for FPA since the late 1970s.

They question the effectiveness of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) in providing a

comprehensive understanding of foreign policy behavior, noting its lack of scientific and
historical depth.
Reassessment of FPA's relevance in today's complex international landscape is
needed. ii.FPA Today:
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is the study of how states make decisions regarding their
interactions with other states and international actors. It seeks to understand the
underlying factors, such as political, economic, and societal influences, that shape a
state's foreign policy goals, strategies, and behavior on the global stage. FPA aims to
provide insights into the decision-making processes of states and the outcomes of their
foreign policy actions. iii.Foreign Policy Analysis and Main International Relations
Theories”
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is not applicable to all theories of international relations
like idealism, realism, and the international society approach, which don't focus on
decision-making processes. This highlights a gap between FPA and broader theoretical
frameworks, requiring critical analysis for integration and unique insights.
b. Graham Allison models:

In "Essence of Decision," Allison offers three models for the Cuban Missile Crisis:
Soviet decision to deploy IRBMs in Cuba
American decision to respond with a blockade Soviet
decision to withdraw the IRBMs i.Rational Actor
Model:
Definition:RAM assumes foreign-policy decisions as rational responses by a single
unitary state actor, maximizing gains and minimizing losses based on a given set of
values.
Kind of analysis favored by traditional accounts of national interests.
Rationality in Ends/Means Terms: Rationality is seen in ends/means
terms; that is to say, it is assumed that states choose the course of
action that maximizes their gains/minimizes their losses in the context of
a given set of values.
Process of Analysis: Rational reconstruction involves simulating the decision-making
process from the perspective of the decision-maker. This entails understanding the
goals pursued by the state and the reasoning leading to specific actions. Example
Application: Understanding the Soviet Union's decision to deploy missiles involves
identifying their goals and the rationale behind their deployment strategy, which may not
always align with explicit statements but can be inferred through actions taken.
Challenges
Incomplete Rationality: RAM assumes fully rational decision-making, which requires a
complete set of values, knowledge of all available options, and algorithms predicting
outcomes. However, these conditions are practically unattainable, both for
decisionmakers and analysts.
Decision-makers lack perfect information, akin to having a fully specified decision
tree in a game of chess. Instead, decisions are often made based on heuristics, rules of
thumb, and intuition, especially when faced with unknown situations or time constraints.
Decision-making, like playing chess, uses rules and exploration, but understanding
these processes is hard because people think in complex ways and have limited time.
Intuition, especially under time pressure, influences decision-making, challenging the
assumption that states always foresee consequences solely through rational processes.
Time Pressure: The RAM may overlook the impact of time pressure on decision-making,
as even experienced decision-makers can make mistakes under such conditions.
ii.Organizational Process Model:
Organizational Process Model assumes that decisions are made by multiple
organizations each of whom have characteristic ways of doing things. organizational
routines and standard operating procedures – and have autonomy as resistant to
being organized by any kind of central intelligence.
When confronted with a problem, organizations like the KGB or the American Navy rely
on institutional memory, drawing from past experiences to address similar challenges,
rather than starting from scratch.Thus fits in with the lack of perfect information of the
rational actor model.
Organizational Behavior
Past experience and routines
When assigned to construct a missile base in Cuba, the Soviet Rocket Forces (SRF)
employ the familiar layout used in the Soviet Union, relying on past experience. They do
not consider that this layout may be easily identifiable to US air reconnaissance.
Autonomy of Organizations: The KGB's secretive transportation of missiles contrasts
with the more conspicuous methods of the SRF, highlighting organizational autonomy. If
the overall Soviet leadership were aware, they might have disapproved, underscoring
decentralized decision-making. III.Bureaucratics Politics Model:
Bureaucratic Politics Model reconstructs rational decision making from another
direction, highlights how external political factors can shape decision-making.
Promote courses of action that meet their interests.
Bureaucracies prioritize actions that align with their organizational interests and
budgetary enhancements.
One aspect of this is the way in which bureaucracies see the world from the perspective
of their own organization. As the slogan has it,
‘Where you sit determines where you stand. Organizational will promote courses of
action that are to enhance their budgetary.
Examples In the United States, the State Department usually favours negotiation, the
UN Representative favors action by the
UN, the US Navy favors action by the US Navy and so on.
Political leader have to protect and defend their position
During the Cuban Missile Crisis President Kennedy knew that his actions could have
posed severe political problems to his chances of re-election, and, more immediately,
the Democratic Party’s prospects in the mid-term Congressional elections in November
1962 – although, interestingly, research now suggests that this was not a determining
factor in his actions but security, diplomacy.
(Lebow and Stein 1994: 95).
Contrasting assumptions: While the Rational Actor Model assumes foreign-policy
decisions are based solely on foreign-policy considerations, the Bureaucratic Politics
Model suggests decisions are often influenced by internal political dynamics and
organizational interests.
Challenges:
Allison's models in "Essence of Decision" remain relevant but lack insights into
decisionmakers' perceptions and cognitive biases, which can lead to errors. Janis'
"Victims of Groupthink" illustrates that simply gathering more opinions doesn't always
prevent flawed group decisions.

Allison's case study is outdated due to its neglect of socio-psychological factors.

Subsequent research shows Soviet decisions were shaped by fears heightened by US
policies, such as warnings on missile deployment in Cuba. Recent studies stress the
impact of ideas and ideologies in foreign policy, notably with the Cold War's conclusion
offering fresh insights.

Allison's models face criticism for their focus on crisis decision-making, as crisis
situations may lead to distinct behavioral patterns compared to normal decision-making
contexts. Additionally, these models may be less applicable in countries with less
bureaucratic structures. Despite these limitations, Allison's models continue to be used,
although they may need updating given their age.

B.Implementation of foreign Policy

If the policy is right,it would be adopted and implemented. Right in the context that it is
appropriate to International conditions rather than domestic pressures. 1.Political
methods
a.Diplomacy
i.Public diplomacy ii.Multilateral diplomacy
b.Alliances and partnerships
c.Soft power initiatives
Cultural, educational and humanitarian exchanges to promote cooperation.

2.Economic Methods a.Trade

agreements
b.Economic sanctions
c.Foreign Aid
d.Investment Policies e
Economic incentives
f.Economic diplomacy.
e.Economic warfare 3.Military
Methods
a.Detterence
b.Defense Alliances
c.Military Deployments
d.Arms sales and military Assistance
e.Humaitarian interventions
f. Military power
e.Cobert operations

B.Case studies of major historical events shaping foreign policy

1.Treaty of Westphalian:
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) ended the Thirty Years' War, establishing state
sovereignty as a foundational principle in modern diplomacy and international relations.
2.Congress of Vienna
3.World Wars
4.Decolonization
5.Cold War
6.Crises (Cuban missile crisis)
7.End of Cold war
8. 9/11 Attacks
9. Arab Spring
V. DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY

Factors which help in shaping and molding foreign policy.

Factors give direction, shape influence and controls country’s foreign policy.
Both tangible and intangible capabilities of a country affects it's foreign policy
A.International Factors ( External Factors)
International environment plays an important role in shaping country’s foreign policy.

Three images proposed by Kenneth Waltz can act as determinant to foreign policy.
1. Individual Level: Decision-makers' personal traits and cognitive biases
influence their interpretation of international events and foreign policy decisions.

(characteristics, perceptions of key decision-makers, personalities, beliefs,

experiences, cognitive basis, ideological orientation)

2. State Level: Domestic factors such as political dynamics, economic conditions

(trade interest, resource availability) and national interests shape a state's
foreign policy choices. Strategic culture

(Domestic pressures, public opinions, interest groups, bureaucratic politics).

3. International System Level: The structure of the international system, including

power dynamics and norms, influences states' strategic calculations and
alliances. (distribution of power among states, alliances, international norms, and
institutions, Power dynamics, such as bipolarity or multipolarity, can influence
states' strategic calculations and alliances and behavior of other states).

The following systemic factors can be better explained from system perspective than
from state perspective
1.Power structure
Balance of power/ power distribution
i.Bipolarity/Multipolarity +US hegemony
2.International Law:
3.International institutions and norms
4.Allinaces
5. Globalization
6. Security threats
7.Economic interdependence

B.Domestic Factors ( Internal Factors): 1.Cultural

and Ideological factors a.National identity
b.Political ideology
c.Public Opinion
d.Religion
e.Language
f.Human rights and democracy

2.Geography
a.Population
b.Resources, Human resources
c.Relative power
d.strategic importance/ geopolitical locations
3.Economic Factors
4.Social factors
5.Poitical factors Regime type– Authoritarian or Liberal democratic

C.Other Factors
1.Psychologica Factors
a.Leadership personality traits, beliefs,
Perceptions and thought processes. b.Group think:
2.Cognitive Factors:
a.Cognitive biases
b.Information processing
c.Rational calculations of costs, benefits and outcomes.

VII. CONTEMPORARY FOREIGN POLICY CHALLENGES:

A.Foreign policy Autonomy is challenged
The prevalence of rational choice theory in contemporary International Relations (IR)
undermines the field of Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), despite the apparent connection
between choice and policy.
The assumption that states are rational egoists operating under conditions of anarchy
limits the space available for foreign policy as an autonomous area of enquiry. One
might have thought that ‘choice’ and ‘policy would go together, but in practice the way in
which rational choice thinking is expressed in neorealism and neoliberalism undermines
this potential partnership.
System is the focus that determines the behavior of the states making the system.
Traditional components of FPA such as ‘public opinion’, the influence of the media,
pressure groups, organizational structure and so on can do little more than confuse
the policymaker, deflecting his or her attention from the real issue, which is the
relationship between the state and the system. B.Climate Change diplomacy.
C.Cybersecurity and digital diplomacy
D.Global Health Diplomacy/ pandemic Response
E.Economic Diplomacy / Trade war and economic wars
F.Securitu threats and Terrorism
G.Human Rights and Democracy
H.Technology and Emerging risks

Defensive or offensive foreign Policy:

Dependent or independent foreign policy?