final Flashcards
What are the key points from psychology and group dynamic?
Leveraging insights from social and cognitive psychology to explain how group dynamics affect foreign policy decision making
Groupthink highlights the impact of in-group pressures (e.g. pressure to conform) on decision making
Prospect theory describes decision making under risk; includes a framing phase and an evaluation phase
Role theory shows how national role conception (NRCs) influence foreign policy
Acknowledging impact of group dynamics challenges assumptions about states as unitary ration actors
Can you provide of examples of groupthink? How might it be overcome
How easy is it to change a state’s national role conception?
What are the group dynamics in foreign policy
Many foreign policy decisions are made by small groups (e.g. cabinets, national security councils)
Recognizing the impact on decision making of social interactions within small groups
Key facts include
1. Internal group cohesion
2. Leadership structure (hierarchical vs. egalitarian)
3. External pressures (e.g. time constraints)
Groupthink model
Prospect theory
Role theory
What is groupthink?
A pathology that leads to “deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures”
“a conceptual model of political decision-making to explain why intelligent, experienced individuals sometimes produce defective policies in group environments”
What are the symptoms of groupthink?
Janis identified 8 symptoms of groupthink
1. Illusion of invulnerability; excessive optimism
2. Collective rationalization
3. Belief in the group’s inherent morality; ignore ethical consequences
4. Stereotyping of enemies
5. Direct pressure of dissenters (horizontal or vertical)
6. Self-censorship; internalizing views held by the group
7. Illusion of unanimity (e.g. misinterpret silence)
Emergence of self-appointed ‘mind-guards’
What is the impact of groupthink?
Failures to survey objectives, alternatives, and risks
Leaders to poor information gathering
Poor information processing
Lack of contingency
What factors are conductive to Groupthink?
Cohesiveness
Homogeneity (e.g. professional experience)
Insulation and close-mindedness
Inter-group tension (i.e. with other group)
High stress
Recent failure
Promotional leadership (leaders promote own ideas)
Ex. US invasion of Iraq (2003)
What is prosepct theory?
Prospect theory is a “descriptive theory of decision making under risk”
Includes two phases
1. Framing phase
2. Evaluative phase
Assumes decision makers don’t make just cost-benefit evaluations but that they make different choices when risk is involved
What are the framing effects of prospect theory?
Information is received and processed such that particular aspects of a problem are emphasized
Determining whether a problem takes place in the realm of gains or losses
Gains or losses judged based on a reference point (e.g. status quo)
How does prospect theory impact risk assessment?
Decision makers tend to be risk-averse in the domain of gains
Decision-makers are risk-seekers in the domain of losses
Ex. President Carter and the Iranian Hostage Crisis
What is role theory?
First emerged in the field of foreign policy analysis (FPA) in the 1970s
Holsti (1970) argued that decision makers’ conceptions of their state’s role on the world stage influenced foreign policy behavior
Examples of roles include ‘allies’ or ‘non-aligned’ or ‘satellites’
Focus on a wider array of states, including small states, not just great powers
Role may be contested and/or contradictor
How does role theory impact foreign policy?
National role conception (NRC); self-defined perception of a state’s role vis-a-vis other states (e.g. mediator)
NRCs are linked to identity and roles of other states (e.g. great powers vs. middle powers)
Role performance; includes attitudes, decisions, and actions taken to implement a national role conception (e.g. initiating negotiations among rival states)
Role prescriptions emanating from the external environment; outline what role is appropriate and what it requires (e.g. middle powers are mediators)
Example: Canada’s National Role conception
What are the key points for individuals and foreign policy?
Scholars disagree about how much impact individual agents can have on foreign policy given structural constraints; how much do individuals relaly matter?
When analysing the impact of individuals, some scholars focus on psychological factors and their effects of decision making
Some analyse the impact of perosnality and leadership styles or ascriptive traits (e.g. gender)
OTher examine the role of socialization and past experiences (e.g. professional background)
Theories that emphasize the role of individuals challenge assumptions about states as unitary, rational actors
What are the first, second, and third-image theory?
Kenneth Waltz identifies three types of theory, which focus on different levels of analysis to explain war
1. first image: individuals
2. second image: domestic characteristics of states
3. third image: international system
the field of foreign policy analysis ahs typically been more accpeting of Frist image theorizing than the field of IR
What are the types of influence on foreign policy?
Individual effects on:
decision process
decision outcome
foreign policy output
What are the individual factors to consider in FPA?
Personality and leadership style
psychological factors (e.g. types of cognitive of bias)
ascriptive characteristics (e.g. gender)
socialization & past experience (e.g. specific national role conceptions)
How does personality and leadership style effect foreign policy?
Promotional leadership vs. openness to advice
degree of risk-aversion
willingness to compromise
active/passive (‘hands on’ vs. ‘laissez faire’)
positive/negative (empowering vs. autocratic)
critics argue that personality is too “elusive” to measure; focusing on leadership style is “unscientific” and “impractical with available data for world leaders”
Ex. Trump and Tariffs
How much does personality matter?
How do psychological factors effect foreign policy?
Jervis argues that a variety of psychological factors can lead to misperception among decision makers. these include:
confirmation bias
availability heuristics
cognitive dissonance
perception of centralization/intent
example: pandemic preparedness
What are the ascriptive characteristics?
Gender
age
religion
nationality
professional background
ex. women as peacemakers
How does socialization and past experience of leaders impact decision making?
Educaiton and professional background (military?)
ideology and values
societal expectations (e.g. gender roles)
national role conceptions (NRC)
Ex. Us secretary of State Rex Tillerson
How much does gender matter vs. socialization
What are the key points to theories, cases and research?
Foreign policy analysis aims to explain foreign policy outcomes, both generally and in specific cases
Foreign policy outcomes include both actions taken and decisions to do nothing
Case studies have long been a popular and valuable method for conducting foreign policy analysis
Case studies may be descriptive, explanatory, comparative, theory-testing, or theory-building
Key steps in case study research include selecting a case and defining the research question; gathering data; analyzing decision making; applying theoretical frameworks and drawing conclusions
Explanatory case studies seek to explain why a foreign policy outcome occurred by leveraging theoretical insights to analyze a particular case
All theories should have observable implications i.e.. Evidence you would expect to see if a theory is correct
FPA tends towards multi-level and multi-causal explanations
Value of process tracing to understand casual mechanisms and sequence of events
It is important to be clear about which observable implications align with which theories i.e. what evidence supports or undermines different theories
Important to consider scope conditions and generalizability: how far can concussions about a single case travel?
What are the types of case studies?
Descriptive: provide a detailed account of a a foreign policy event or outcome
Explanatory: seek to explain why a particular decision was made
Comparative: compare two or more cases to identify patterns
Theory testing: use a case to test existing theory
Theory building: draw on specific foreign policy outcomes/events to develop new theories
How do you conduct a case study?
Selecting a case
Defining the research question
Gathering data
Analyzing decision making
Applying theoretical frameworks
Drawing conclusion
What is process tracing?
“a method that attempts to identify the intervening causal process - the causal chain and causal mechanism - between an independent variable or variables and the outcome of the dependent variable”
“as a tool of causal inference, process tracing confuses on the unfolding of events or situations over time. Yet grasping this unfolding is impossible if one cannot adequately describe an event or situation at one point in time. Hence, the descriptive component of process tracing begins not with observing change or sequence but rather taking good snapshots at a series of specific moments.”
Ex. Why did the Trudeau government impose tariffs on US goods?
20 years ago, it would have been unthinkable so in order to understand what is happening, process tracing would help picture everything
This is a reaction to the other states - retaliatory tariffs
The process is clear, go back a few months and look at what happened, look at the solutions that were tried
What is a theory? What should they be?
A way to condense knowledge
“a theory is a useful way to condense knowledge. A theory argues that there is a relationship between concepts that is, abstract ideas that represent qualities in the world”
All theories should have observable implications, i.e. things we would expect to see if a theory is correct
Theories should also be falsifiable; it should also be clear what type of evidence would suggest a theory is incorrect
Theories that do not offer clear predictions about states’ foreign policy behavior make it difficult to assess their merits or compare them to other theories
Ex. Individuals and Canadian FP
How do you know if an individual leader matters
You would expect FP to look different under different leaders
Variation along people even in the same party
What are mutli-causal explanations?
Multi-casual explanations are common in foreign policy analysis
Few foreign policy outcomes can be explained by one factor/variable alone
Importance of identifying which factors are likely to be most important, providing theoretical justification
Ex. Allision’s essence of decision
Model 1 - rational actor model, model 2 - organizational process model, and model 3 - bureaucratic politics model
What are multi-level explanations?
Multilevel explanations also a hallmark of FPA
Consider the international level, state level, individual level
Factors at one level can interact with and influence other levels, creating complex webs of causation
Considering how variables at different levels interact provides a more nuanced account of foreign policy outcomes
What is foreign policy?
The strategy or approach chosen by the national government to achieve its goals in its relations with external entities. This includes decisions to do nothing
A set of actions of rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the international environment… including actions, reactions, and inaction, which may be ad hoc or repeated… or the specific conception that a state has of its place in the world
Is this an action, reaction, inaction or a one time thing
What are Rosenau’s 5 factors?
- International system
- Societal environment
- Government setting
- Bureaucratic roles of policymakers
- Individual characteristics of FP elites
What is a case study?
Case studies have long been popular and valuable method for conducting foreign policy analysis
A case study is a “well-defined aspect of a historical episode that the investigator selects for analysis”
In FPA, a case study examines a specific action, reaction, or a case of inaction
it might be a single event or a pattern of behavior
What is a case?
A case is an instance of a class or subclass of events
A class of events can be a foreign policy outcome, a type of behavior, a change in attitude, etc.
A single event may be a case of many different things; scholars may study the same event, but treat it as a case of different phenomena
A single event may include multiple cases of a single phenomenon
Importance of being clear about the phenomenon of interest
You can never include every event of a case
The goal is to zero in on something significant
What are the advatages of case studies?
Allow for deep contextual understanding of particular outcomes or types of outcomes
Exploring causal mechanisms(e.g. distinguish correlation from causation)
Assessing complex causal relationships (e.g. path dependence)
Deriving new hypotheses, alternative explanations for observed phenomena (e.g. causes of conscription in Russia vs. Ukraine
What are the key points for Case study 1?
After WWII, Japan formally adopted a pacifist foreign policy; scholars continue to debate the significance and impact of this policy
Some scholars stress the impact of institutional and legal constraints (e.g. Article 9 of the constitution)
Constructivists emphasize the impact of culture, norms, and national identity, especially a culture of anti-militarism
Realist focus on alliances, regional security dynamics, and the balance of power in East Asia to explain Japanese foreign and defence policy
Studying debates about Japanese remilitarization polices show how different theoretical perspective can be applied to explain foreign policy outcomes
Realists (e.g. Lind) argue that Japan does not actually have a pacifist foreign policy it only looks that way because Japan engages in buck-passing
Most scholars agree that US security guarantees are key enabler of Japan’s restrained defence and security policy
Yet hard power and regional security considerations interact with public opinion, institutional constraints, domestic political dynamics, and a culture of anti-militarism to shape outcomes
Importance of looking at multiple factors across levels of analysis to explain Japanese defence and security policy
How is pacificism baked into Japanese foreign policy?
The peace clause of the Japanese constitution formally renounces war
Article 9, Constitution of Japan
What is the Yoshida Doctrine?
The Yoshida Doctrine emerged in 1950s and has shaped Japanese foreign policy into the 21st century
Close ties with the US, reliance on US security guarantees via the 1951 Mutual Security Treaty
Strong focus on economic growth; prioritizing post-war economic recovery over military buildup
Japan self-defense Forces established in 1954; emphasis on self-defense and civilian control
What lessons did Japan learn from military defeat?
Institutional and legal constraints as a response to Japan’s defeat in WWII
More than 2.5 million Japanese killed during WWII
Cities and industrial capacity largely destroyed; 66 cites firebombed; 2 nuclear bombs detonated
First time being defeated by a foreign power
Us-lead allied occupation from 1945 until 1952
Transition to constitutional monarch in 1947
Hiroshima & Nagasaki
August 6 and 9th, 1945
Chosen because they were urban areas
Wanting to put the war to the end quickly and with as little deaths as possible
Demonstration effect - wanting to show the USSR
Racism
This would feed into the countries commitment to pacifism
What are the limitations to institutional explanations for Japan’s pacifism?
Americans primarily responsible for drafting the 1947 constitution
Prevalence of ethnocentric nationalism
Strong group loyalty and decentralized decision-making fosters mutual accommodation among leading institutions
Relative absence of war guilt
Rules are open to interpretation; legal and constitutional change are possible (e.g. 1992 International Peace Cooperation Act)
Ex. The Yasukuni Shrine Controversy
Includes people convicted of War Criminals
What are constructivist explanations for Japan’s pacifism?
Japanese national identity; Japan as a democracy as a “peace nation”
Strong national culture of anti-militarism; visible in public opinion and position to changes in Japanese defence policy
Norms against militarism shape the policy making process
Relatively weak regional security institutions; emphasis on national culture, identity, and norms
Strong culture of anti-militarism creates significant constraints for policy makers (e.g. public opinion in response to the Gulf War crisis)
Commitment to not using force is more important then another state’s sovereignty
Heavy reliance on US security guarantees, including American nuclear “umbrella”
Structures of Japan Self-defense forces designed to complement US capabilities; primarily defensive capabilities, not offensive
Culture can change, through it tends to be incremental
Depends on continuance of security cooperation with the US
Japan & UN peacekeeping
International peace cooperation Act
What are the realist explanations for Japanese foreign policy?
Lind argues that scholars underestimate Japan’s military capabilities; Japan less pacifist than many assume
GDP per capita (approx. 1%) is a misleading statistic* it was true in 2004, now it is more like 10th in spending
Better to look at capabilities and total defense spending
Japan’s totally defense expenditures are significant; its navy and air force are formidable
What is offensive vs. defensive realism?
Realists are united by a focus on anarchy and its effects on state behavior; security trumps other foreign policy considerations
Realists can be divided into offensive and defensive camps
Offensive realism suggest that great powers will seek regional hegemony; want to have more influence, more control in their region, not always
Defensive realism suggests that states must be vigilant, but expansionism is usually counter-productive; defense is easier than offense
What are realist foreign policy strategies?
Conquest: offensive strategy aimed at expansion and regional hegemony
Band wagoning: offensive strategy in which a state jumps on the band with the majority
Balancing: defensive strategy in which states focus more on balancing the influences of others
Buck-passing: defensive strategy where a state has a powerful ally and outsource as much as their security as they can
* “States are more likely to choose a buck passing strategy when geography or military technology makes them less vulnerable to immediate invasion. Buck-passing is also particularly appealing to countries that are relatively secure, and to those that have powerful allies that can contain foreseeable threats”
* US-Japan Security Cooperation
Pacifism or buck-passing?
What is Lind’s explaination for Japanese foreign policy?
Lind (2004) argues that scholars underestimate Japan’s military capabilities; Japan less pacifist than many assume
Proportion of GDP (approx. 1%) is a misleading statistic
Better to look at capabilities and total defense spending
Japan’s total defense expenditures are significant; its navy and air force are formidable
What is buck-passing?
Buck-passing: defensive strategy in which threats are recognized, but a state does as little as possible balance them, relying on others instead
More likely when geography or military technology makes a state less vulnerable to immediate invasion
Appealing to countries that are relatively secure and to those with powerful allies that can contain foreseeable threats
Lind argues that Japan’s security relationship with the US has allowed it to engage in buck-passing, not norm-driven pacifism
What does contemporary burden-sharing look like?
International Peace cooperation Act allowed for overseas deployments in Un peace operations and for humanitarian missions
2013 National Security Strategy: “proactive contribution to peace”
Legislation pass in 2015 to allow for “collective self-defense” operations
2022 Defense Buildup Program (target 2% GDP); increased in defense spending last 13 consecutive years;
2024 decision to relax rule on arms exports, including fighter jet parts
How do democratic insitutions affect decision making in Japan?
Voters concerned about threats; more open to higher defense spending, but Article 9 remains
Yet public opinion still constrains turn towards new goals and capabilities
Example: 73% still oppose acquisition of nuclear weapons
Doubling defense spending has significant budgetary implications
What are cultural constrains on decision-making in Japan?
Suspicion of revisionist “ideologues” other social, cultural, and political objectives
Questions about threat analysis; public resistance to US pressure to re-arm
Persistent cultural of anti-militarism
Example: Recruitment challenges for Japan’s self-defense forces
What are key factors from level of analysis about Japan’s pacifism?
International: reliability of US security guarantees; regional security dynamics
National: shifting culture of anti-militarism; fiscal and demographic constraints
Individual: cross-cutting beliefs and priorities of key Japanese policy makers (e.g. revisionist vs. pacifist vs. ‘proactive pacifists’)
What are the key points for case study 2?
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation are often described as foreign policy failures
Total cost more than $1 trillion; at least 200,000 killed; effects still felt across the region
Explaining these events requires a multi-level explanation that accounts for factors across different levels of analysis
Key factors at the international/systemic level include unipolarity and US primacy; differences in regime type
Heated disagreements among realists and liberals about how to explain the war
Key factors at the domestic level include neoconservative ideology, post 9/11 sense of vulnerability, 1% doctrine, and over-estimating probability of success
In addition to systemic/international causes, inter-related factors operating at the other lvels of analysis contributed to the US decision to invade Iraq and hampered post-war planning
At the domestic level, bureaucratic rivalries between government agencies and departments skewed decision-making
At the small group level, groupthink and anticipatory compliance curtailed options under consideration
At the individual level, the leadership styles of President Bush and his key advisors skewed deciison and caused critical informaiton to be overlooked
What was Iraq’s weapons programs?
Iraqi defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, following operation desert storm
UN security council established a process to oversee destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program
Inspections 1991-1998 resulted in destruction of chemical, biological weapons, and nuclear-related equipment and materials
History of partial Iraqi compliance
New commission established in 1999 to continue monitoring and verification: United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission
Escalating tension and allegations of non-compliance through 2002-2003
Executive Chairman, Hans Blix, reported that in the buildup to war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with Un inspections
What was operation Irawi freedom and what was the outcome?
On 20th March 2003 the Us and its allies launched Operation Iraqi Freedom
Began with a “shock and awe” bombing campaign, following by ground invasion by 160,000 coalition troops
Combat operation declared over by President Bush
No weapons of mass destruction found
Violent insurgency post-invasion
More than 200,000 Iraqi civilians dead
4,400 US and allied troops killed
Prolonged period of violence and instability in Iraq and surrounding region
Human rights violations and alleged war crimes (e.g. Abu Ghraib prison scandal)
What is the realist view on the US invasion of Iraq?
Prominent realist scholars (e.g. John Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz) vocally opposed the US invasion
Realist argued that it was unnecessary, imprudent, and did not serve US national interests
Threat inflation and unintended consequences
Some argued that the invasion was a result of unconstrained post-Cold War liberalism expansionism
Misguided attempt to spread freedom and democracy via regime change
What was the liberal response to the US invasion of Iraq?
The notion that the war was a product of liberalism is misleading.
Iraq war was straightforwardly the result of the pursuit of American hegemonic primacy. Its origins flowed readily from an ancient and prominent body of realist though that argues that international order comes from concentrations of power, rather than from shifting balances of power
Liberals argue the refusal to abide by UN security Council decision was inconsistent with liberal internationalism
Focus instead on WMDs and existential security threats
US pursuit of hegemonic primacy
Disdain for multilateral institutions; willingness to resolve disputes by force
What was the role of domestic factors in the US invasion of Iraq?
Prevalence of neo-conservative ideology among top decision makers:
Ideological orientation that selectively combines elements of both realist and liberal thought
Implications for both domestic and foreign policy
Origins in the 1970s; response to US failure in Vietnam and protests
Strategic spread and promotion of these ideas through 1980s and 1990s
Moral clarity and certainty about American role in the world; good vs. evil
US should maintain military pre-eminence; benevolent US hegemony
US should be willing to leverage military power and use force in its foreign policy
Deep skepticism about international law and multilateral institutions
Post 9/11 sense of vulnerability:
Collective sense of vulnerability after the September 11th terrorist attacks
Attempts to link Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda
US congressional support; reluctance to be seen as soft on national security
Opinion polls in late 2002 showed more than 50% of Americans favored invading Iraq
The 1% doctrine:
Probability estimate that guides foreign policy actions
Even if there is only a 1% chance of a grave threat materializing, it must be treated as a certainty
Overestimating the probability of success:
Assumption that Iraqis would greet coalition troops as liberators
Overly optimistic planning assumptions re. number of troops
Limited and confused planning for post-war Iraq
What was the Bush Doctrine?
Collection of principles and rationales guiding US foreign policy:
Unilateralism; willingness to act without UN approval
Pre-emptive use of force; US right secure itself before an attack occurs
Regime change; spreading freedom and democracy by removing autocrats
What is bureaucratic politics?
Bureaucratic poltics models stress the impact of bureaucratic role, position, and organziational mission
actors’ policy positionns laregly determined by their position within government; ‘where you stand dependson where you sit’
different departments and agencies seek to advance conflciting interests, maximize power relative to other parts of the bureaucracy
How did bureaucratic poltics affect the Iraq war?
President Bush’s principal advisors were competing to develop policy
substantive differences on policy including multilateralism and use of force
bargaining and conflict among advisors produced competing factions and subgroups based on preferred policies (e.g. DOD vs. dept. of state)
crisis magnifies loyalty to in-groups, animosity towards outgroups
How does groupthink led to anticipatory compliance?
In hierarchical settings, group members understand the preferences of their superior(s) and are motivated to support them (e.g. Rice as National Security Advisor)
Go along with a leaders preferences without even being explicity told to
anticipatory compliance exacerbated bt intragroup confict; strategy for seeking advantage
What are the key traits in leadership style?
- Belief in ability to control events; activist policy agendas, less willing to compromise
- Conceptual complexity; see more nuances and shades of grey, seek out alternative opinions
- distrust; conviciton that statements and actions of others tend are often insincere
- ingroup bias; perception that one’s own group is best of commitment to maintaining its status
- need for power; desire to influence, control, or dominate others, suppression of dissent
- self-confidence; less sensitive to information from the environment, less willing to adapt
- task emphasis; focus on task completion vs. feeling and needs of others
How did the leadership traits in the Bush administration affect the Iraq invasion?
Shannon and Keller find significant variation in leadership styles among key advisors in the Bush administration
They aruge that this variation helps explain willingness to violate established norms (e.g. state sovereignty)
Example: belief in ability to control events correlated with willingness to use force against Iraq
How did President Bush’s leadership style affect the Iraq invasion?
Mitchell and Massoud identity several key elements of president Bush’s leadership style:
Hierarchical decision-making sturcutes
insular; preference for advice from close advisors
preference for acting on gut instinct; rapid, ad hoc decision-making
action-oriented; reluctance to change a decision once made
What are the key points to The Future of Foreign policy?
FPA must adapt to account for three inter-related trends: the global rise of populism; third-wave of autocratization; and changes in the media and information environment
The rise of populism has implications for how foreign policy is formulated, the substance of foreign policy, and how states view world order
Democratic backsliding have systemic implications for foreign policy; potential for the liberal zone of peace to shrink
Within democracies, changes in the media and information environment cast doubt on established foreign policy patterns among democracies
What are trends to watch internationally?
- Global rise of populism, especially right-wing popularism
- Third wave of autocratization and implies for democratic peace theory
- Changes in the media and information environment
What is populism?
A thin ideology that separates society into two ‘homogeneous and antagonistic’ groups; the pure people vs the corrupt people
Argues that politics should be an expression of the general will i.e. the will of the people
Typically paired with a ‘host’ ideology, yielding right-wing or left-wing variants of populism
How does populism affect foreign policy today?
Wajner et al. argues that the current global wave of populism primarily right-wing and to varying degrees authoritarian
Authoritarian populism combines anti-elitism and people-centrism with nationalism, majoritarianism (even at the expense of minority rights), and decisionism (weaken the normal process to make foreign policy decisions)
Authoritarian populism tends to weaken democratic institutions over time; contributes to democratic backsliding
Authoritarian populism has implications for
1. Politics: centralizing and personalizing foreign policy:
Skeptical of foreign policy elites, especially diplomats
Work to marginalize expert advisors
Foster cult of leadership with global audiences
Dispense with political procedures and deliberations; leader-centric meetings
Example: Trump and the War in Ukraine
- Policies: emphasize national sovereignty
Emphasis on sovereignty; less willing to negotiate or compromise
Co-existence of pragmatic policy with rhetorical confrontation
Reject internal or external limitations of popular sovereignty (e.g. human rights law)
Tendency to reject historical responsibilities
Example: Brexit - recapturing British sovereignty - Polities: contesting international institutions and the liberal international order
Vocal opposition to multilateralism and international institutions
Global governance as a target of politicization and mobilization
Pushback against international bureaucracies and transnational elites
Create ‘alternative’ institutions and orders
Example: Orban’s Pro-sovereignty world order
Will populsim affect Canadian foreign policy?
How is the wave of autocratization affecting foreign policy?
Rise of authoritarian populism raises questions about democratic backsliding
System-level implications of having fewer democracies; smaller zone of peace - democratic peace theory
How has media and pubolic opinion changed foreign policy?
Assumptions about informational symmetries between public and foreign policy elites
Public generally not interested; elites relatively free to act
Public only becomes interested when there is signal attention is warranted (e.g. high causality rates)
Role of media in attracting public attention
Example: the CNN effect: dramatic, widely-available video footage of human suffering creates pressure for governments to act
Example: the ‘living room war’ - Vietnam War (1955-1975)
What has changed in media?
‘soft news’ and hollowing out of the media’s overseas reporting capacity
Rise of cable and satellite news; pressure to specialize based on distinct audience tastes and differentiate from competitors
Media fragmentation; rise of partisan news erodes the ‘information commons’
Era of hyper-fragmentation accelerated by the internet and social media; users ‘walled off’ from dissonant messaging
What are the democratic constraints on policy making?
People are not getting information to hold their leaders accountable
There’s less reason to believe the democracies will now be held accountable and therefore be peaceful
How does Social media Affect foreign policy?
What are the implications of media on foreign policy?
Growing political polarization affects foreign policy by marking it harder to:
1. Secure cross-partisan support for ambitions initiatives
2. Agree on lessons to be learned from foreign policy failures
3. Maintain long-term commitments vis-a-vis allies and adversaries; risk of dramatic policy swings
4. Guard against foreign interference in domestic political system
