midterm Flashcards
What is the golden thread?
- The relationship between foreign policy analysis (FPA) and the field of international relations (IR)
- Foreign policy outputs/behavior vs processes of decision-making
- Strengths and limitations of different theories for explaining foreign policy processes and outcomes
- Different goals of FPA and methodological disagreements about how to study foreign policy
Links between foreign policy as a field of academic study and foreign policy as a field of professional practice
what are the key points from history of foreign policy analysis?
Studying foreign policy is not new, but FPA took off within the field of IR in the mid-20th century
FPA is a state-centric field, focused mainly on the decisions and actions of national governments
FPA tends to be both mutli-level and multi-causal
Efforts to develop a ‘universal’ theory of foreign policy behavior motivated much of the early work on FPA
The relationship between FPA and the practice of foreign policy is complex and continually evolving
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”
Something that is chosen, not something that just happens
The idea that somebody (group) is making decisions about what strategy or approach to do
Who is doing the choosing
- National governments are typically understood to be making this decision
- Federal national government makes decisions on the behalf of the people and state
They have goals and make choices based on these goals
- How to weigh different competing goals
External actors
- Actors outside their boarders (States,Multinational corporations, Etc. )
The choice includes doing nothing
-deciding not to act is still significant
What are the elements of state sovereignty? What does Foreign Policy focus on?
Territorial integrity:
States have a right to control what is going on in their borders
Political independence:
Linked to territorial integrity
Have the right to have their own elections and not to be interfered with
Sovereign equality:
Have the right to be treated equally in the international sphere
What about the security council?
UN is full of contradictions
sovereign equality on paper
FP focuses on states and assumed that they are the main actors
How does foreign policy anaylsis treat fp vs. domestic policy?
FPA assumes a clear distinction between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ policy
These distinctions reflect political and ideological positions and can be fuzzy
Foreign policy deals with anarchy, domestic policy does not
Describing someone as domestic policy can take away elements, such as native Americans
What is foreing policy analysis?
“The subfield of international relations that seeks to explain foreign policy, or, alternatively, foreign policy behavior with reference to the theoretical ground of human decision makers, acting singly and in groups”
What are the hallmarks of foreign policy analysis
- Shared commitments to:
1. Look below the nation-state level to actor-specific information
2. Build actor-specific theory (a form of mid-range theory) as middle ground between actor-general theory and the complexity of the real world
3. Pursue multicausal and multi-level explanations
i. System level and other levels that matter too
ii. Rarely one variable that determines an outcome
4. Leverage theory and findings across the spectrum of social science
i. Adding in different views from different subjects
View the process of foreign policy decision making as being just as important as FP outputs
what are the goals of FPA?
Goals of FPA vary significantly:
Building a ‘universal’ theory of foreign policy
- Actor general theory
- Trying to compare how different states conduct their foreign polices and then use that to build a universal theory
- Treats foreign policy analysis as physics
- Largely has fallen
Building actor-specific, mid-range theory
- More about not explaining everything but explain certain actions in a certain time
Providing sound advice to policymakers based on rigorous research
Is a ‘universal’ theory of foreign policy possible?
Would be every decision, throughout time, in every place
Probably not
You could say overall goals of everyone but not predicting what others would do or why
What are Rosenau’s 5 factors?
Rosenau identifies five factors to consider in FPA:
International system:
The options open/not open to it depends on the international system
Societal environment:
Looking at the society of the state
Values
National character
deology
Things that are important to the state and how that effects the decisions it makes
Government setting:
Where the foreign policy is made
Presidential vs. parliamentary system
How much freedom the leader has
Bureaucratic roles in policymakers:
Where you stand depends on where you sit
Which department they are in, which ministry
Individual characteristics of FP elites:
The people who formulate the policy
Are they risk takers, confrontational, how does race and gender impact this, who gets listened to or ignored
Trump - how can we use things like social psychology to analysis how a particular person can impact FP
What are the levels of analysis in FPA?
Cognitive processes
Leadership personality:
Values, their ideological commitments
Past experiences
Risk taker?
Small group dynamics:
How do they get along
Who do they surround themselves with
Organization process:
Different system of governments
Congress
Bureaucratic politics:
Turf wars
Culture and foreign policy:
A states identity and culture will effect the way foreign policy sees priority
Domestic political contestation
National attributes:
States role in the world
How it sees itself
System effects:
States place in the system
Big, middle, small power
How useful is FPA for policy makers?
Can be helpful but not really preditive
What are the key points for liberalism vs. realism?
Realism and liberalism are IR theories with deep philosophical roots; both can be applied in FPA
They share some key assumptions about state behavior, but they diverge in important ways
Realism stresses prudence, self-interest, and rationality in foreign policy; wary of morality as a guide for decision-making; Critics note the risk of amoral and unethical decision-making
Liberalism emphasizes shared interests and prospects for cooperation pacifying effects of liberalism and democracy; critics note the risk of liberal imprudence
what was realism in the historical perspective and what are the core assumptions now?
Historical:
“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”
Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian Wars
“A prudent ruler cannot keep his word, nor should he, where such fidelity would damage him, and when the reasons that made him promise are no longer relevant”
Niccolo Machiavelii, The Prince
International system is anarchic
Sovereign states are the main actors; Saying that at the end of the day, states matter most
States are unitary rational actors, pursing their own interest:
They can be treated as single actors - unitary
Cost benefit calculations - rational
Pure self-interest
The state’s primary goals are national security and state survival
- National security weighs very heavily against anything else
National power and capabilities are key determinants of relations between states
- About where they sit in the international system
What are the 6 principles of political realism?
Hans Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism:
- Objective laws rooted in human nature:
Objective laws - universal theory
Human nature - states are always looking to maximize their own power - Interest defined in terms of power
- Concerned with power not values/others
- Mostly in terms of security - Interest in power is objective and universal, but not fixed
- Shifts based on context - Aware of the moral significance of political actions
- Usually criticized for not being moral and only looking at self-interest
- Are aware of this and it should not led them astray - The moral aspirations of a single state should not be equated with universal moral laws
- Autonomy of the political sphere
- Politics is a separate world
Do ‘hard’ security issues always trump concerns about social and economic wellbeing when states make foreign policy decisions? Should they?
- Ex. CIA and the 1973 Coup in Chile
○ Looking out for your own people
○ Realist emphasizes the national security aspect of protecting your shores and keeping the ‘enemy’ further away from you
Critics say it is self-fulfilling
What is Neo-realism?
Kenneth Waltz (1979)
Shares a focus on rational, self-interested, utility-maximizing states
- States are most important
Power politics in a self-help system
Objective laws, but they are not rooted in human nature
- Different from Morgenthau
- Because it is anarchy and it’s a self-help system, it causes them to behave a certain way
More focus on system-level factors and patterns of behavior under anarchy
Is national security what matters most?
Economic growth, power
Time and place
What was liberalism in the historical perspective?
“the weapon of the relativity of thought must be used to demolish the utopian concept of a fixed and absolute standards by which policies and actions can be judges… The utopian, when he preaches the doctrine of harmony of interests, is innocently and unconsciously… clothing his own interest in the guise of a universal interest for the purpose of imposing it on the rest of the world”
○ E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1939
Its always just an excuse for the powerful to do what they want
Importance of individual rights and freedoms
Institutions (both domestic and international) as key mechanisms for upholding rights and freedoms
Possibility of mutually beneficial cooperation
Democratization and liberalization foster a ‘zone of peace’
What are liberal legacies in Foreign policy?
According to Doyle, Liberalism has three main ‘legacies’ in foreign policy
Peace among liberals:
Liberal democracies tend to not go to war with each other
Democracies do still fight non-democracies
Imprudent vehemence:
Democracies get carried away and think it is wise to spread their ideas across the world and thus get to wars with non-democracies
Complaisance towards threats:
They are also prone to turning into themselves
Liberal theorist argue now that western states turn a blind eye towards Russia in 2014, leading to Putin to keep going forward with invasions
What is democratic peace theory?
Immanuet Kant (1795) essay on Perpetual Peace explains both tendencies:
Representative republican government ensures accountability; wars require public support
Principles commitment to respect legally institutionalized rights; international law
Social and economic interdependence; material incentives for cooperation
Democracies do not go to war with each other
Three main explanations:
Institutional constraints: checks and balances, public accountability
Normative constraints: democratic norms of negotiation and compromise
Economic interdependence: going to war with trading partners is mutually damaging
Three variants of DPT - how people think about the theory
Monadic: democracies are generally more peaceful than non-democracies
Dyadic: democracies do not go to war with other democracies
Systemic: more democratic states in the system will make the system more peaceful
Most of the research shows monadic and dyadic
O’Neal and Russett find that three related variables all contribute to the democratic peace:
○ Democracy
○ IO membership
○ Economic interdependence
* Example: the European Union (EU)
○ In order to join, state must be a democracy
What are neo-liberal institutionalism core assumptions?
Keohane (1984) and Keohane and Nye (1977) argue that
International system is anarchic
Sovereign states are the main actors
States are unitary rational actors, pursing their own interests, but domestic characteristics also shape state behavior
The state’s goals extend beyond national security and state survival
Absolute gains and positive sum games (as opposed to relative gains and zero-sum relations with other states)
Should morality guide foreign policy?
Ex. NATO operations in Libya
What are key points to rationalism vs. constructivism?
Realism and liberalism are both rationalist theories of IR
Constructivism emphasizes the social construction of reality (e.g. anarchy is what states make of it)
Centrality of norms, culture, and identity in foreign policy decision making (in addition to material factors) Ideas matter
Logic of consequences vs. logic of appropriateness; alternative explanations for state behavior; Different ways to think about state behavior
Critics argue that constructivism is too broad and abstract to guide policy making; others believe it can serve as s a guide to action
What are rationalist theories of ir?
Realism and liberalism (including structural realism and neo-liberal institutionalism) are both rationalist
Both assume that human reason is the main source and test or truth; reality is objectively out there
Significant overlap with rational choice theory; states act to maximize expected utility based on cost-benefit calculations; preference for material explanations
Rational actors follow a ‘logic of consequences’ try achieve goals as efficiently as possible: Refers to the idea that actors will do what they need to do to achieve their goals as efficiently as possible; Does it serve my interests not does this break social rules
Assumed to be the ‘theories of choice’ among policymakers; Openly prescriptive
Critics (including constructivists) argue that rationalists theories rely on unrealistic assumptions; have failed to predict or explain key events (e.g. end of Cold War)
What is contructivism?
“ideas matter”
“Constructivism is the view that the manner in which the material world shapes and is shaped by human action and interaction depends on dynamic normative and epistemic interpretations of the material world”
“Constructivism is centrally concerned with the role of ideas in constructing social life [but] constructivism is not pure idealism. Instead, the emphasis on ideas is meant to oppose arguments that about social life which emphasize the role of brute material conditions like biology, geography, and technology”
What are the assumptions and key insights of constructivism?
Social construction of reality; the world is of our making; Self-fulfilling
Agents and interests are not given a priority: Start from the assumption that states are what matter most - they think that this will make them miss important things because you cannot say that the state will be the big actor forever; Cannot just take the interests for granted; Cannot just assume they are one way, might fulfill that way, but it may not be set in stone
Role of agents and structures and potential for change; social construction is a continuous, ongoing process
Agents have the potential to change the system
They are mutually acting
Centrality of norms, culture, and identity; role of intersubjective knowledge
Role of ideas
Norms - Shared standards for their given identity (Shaking hands, It changed during COVID)
Culture - Their culture international and domestic
Identity - How they see themselves
How they can shape FP decision making
Logic of appropriateness vs. logic of consequences
Logic of consequences - a cost/benefit efficient process
Logic of appropriateness - I should do this because it is right and it is expected
No immediate reward, it’s an expectation
Key concepts and sights borrowed from other fields; did not start out as a theory of IR
How does constructivism work in foreign policy?
Unites of analysis (states) and their interests are socially constructed; they should not be taken for granted
Norms, culture, and identity shape foreign policy decision making
Decisions based on a “logic of appropriateness” vs. “logic of consequences”
Concept of bounded rationality
○ Assumes that every option is on the table
○ Bounded rationality - norms, culture, identity give you some sort of zone
There are options that you don’t have
How much do ideas matter?
Does constructivism offer policy -relevant insights?
What do critics of constructivism say?
Constructivism is an ‘empty vessel’ that does not specify the actors or issues of interest in international politics
Does not offer solutions to specific problems; does not offer clear policy prescriptions
How does Houghton argue that constructivism can serve as a guide to action for policymakers?
Actors are critical: potential to reshape the system
Argument and language matter a lot: We will change the way we look at things with the language
‘If you can’t change the physical, change the social”:You cannot change that a state has nuclear weapons but you can change the social ideas that you have towards that
Don’t assume rationality or a “logic of consequences”
Try to initiate “norm cascades”: Term for when you have the emergence of a norm and it gets to the tipping point where most people buy it and it becomes the main way to look at something
Encourage/discourage self-fulfilling belief
What are key points to structual constraints & Marxists and post/decolonial approaches?
Unlike mainstream IR theories Marxist and post/decolonial theories emphasize hierarchies within the international system, not anarchy
These political, racial, and economic hierarchies are understood as products of empire, colonialism, and capitalism
Hierarchies create structural advantages for some, structural constraints and exploitation for others
Critiques of IR theory and foreign policy analysis for being Eurocentric and ignoring the impact of colonialism and capitalism
Post/decolonial and Marxist approaches share an explicit normative dimension
What is the difference between anarchy and hierarchy?
Theories like realism and liberalism start from the premises that the international system is anarchic
They assume that sovereign states are mostly alike
Both Marxist and post/decolonial theories emphasize hierarchical dimensions of the international system
Both highlight structural advantages enjoyed by Western states, constraints, and exploitation faced by non-western states
What does the scramble for Africa show?
The Berlin Conference (1884-1885)
The history of the division of states for their colonizers is impacting the politics today so you can’t talk about the state and its priorities without thinking about its history and past of exploitation
What is Lenin’s theory of imperialism?
Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism
It will always reach this point
Economic motivations for colonial expansion; quest for raw materials, new markets, export of excess capital
Capital - money invested, there’s only so many things you can invest in, in your own country
Connections between capitalism, war, and foreign policy
Critiques of Lenin’s economic determinism
It doesn’t always play out in practice
What is dependency theory?
Dependency theory highlights ongoing exploitation despite formal, sovereign equality
Relations between states in the core, periphery, and semi-periphery
Core - the privileged western states, looking down on the periphery and semi-periphery states
Immanuel Wallerstein and the world system as units of analysis
Role of multinational corporations and global capitalism
Do economic elites dominate foreign policy?
What are post and decolonial theories of IR?
Empire and colonization as key explanatory factors in international politics; structure of power that influence other types of power (e.g. sovereignty)
Inherent violence of colonization; bases of Western power rooted in domination and exploitation of people and resources around the world
Racism and dehumanization; assumptions about superiority of western civilization
Differences between post-colonial vs. decolonial theory
Did not start out as a theory of international relations; highlights Eurocentric origins of IR theory
What is neocolonialism?
Neo-colonialism; relations of imperialism and colonization persist today in global institutions and in relations among states
* “the essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside
What does The West and Central African CFA Franc show?
- Both have a fixed exchange rate that is connected to the Euro
- Both have to give part of their money to the French Government
Restricts the sovereignty
- Both have to give part of their money to the French Government
Is foreign policy analysis a colonial discipline?
What are the key points to knowledge, power, and ethics in fp?
Mainstream theories of IR and foreign policy have traditionally stressed hard power (e.g. military and economic power)
States also use soft power to advance foreign policy objectives
Theories that focus on structural power highlight the role of rules and institution in foreign policy
Knowledge, power ethics figure prominently in foreign policy practice, and in the study of foreign policy
Is it possible to have an ethical foreign policy without relying on a sense of moral superiority?
When trying to explain foreign policy behavior, how easy is it to distinguish ethical actions from self-interested ones?
What are the 3 ways to think about power?
Hard power
Soft power
Structural power
All three are important for explaining variation in states’ foreign policy behavior
What is hard power?
Military power
Economic power
Associated with threats, coercion, and compulsion
Examples: coercive diplomacy, economic sanctions, formation of military alliances, use of military forc
What is soft power?
“when one country gets other counties to want what it wants might be called co-optive or soft power in contrast with the hand or command power of ordering others to do what it wants
“Power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes one prefers, and that can be accomplished by coercion, payment, or attraction and persuasion. Soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment”
Power of a magnet
Hard power is under the control of the government, soft power has a lot to do with culture, art, music, etc.
America has this power of attraction, it has some control but not full control over this power
What is structural power?
Ability to shape and determine structures of the global system
Structures include global norms, rules, and institutions
States wield structural power when they shape these norms, rules, and institutions
Decide what the rules of the game are, who does/doesn’t get to play the game
Example: influencing the development of international law or trade rules
What kind of power is the United nations Security Council?
Hard power and structural power
Permanent 5 (P5) members: Untied States, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China
Centrality of both hard power and soft power in determining composition of the UNSC
Structural power associated with membership (e.g. passing binding resolutions)
What are the key points to democracies and non-democracies?
Scholars disagree about how much regime type matters for foreign policy behavior
Democratic peace theory holds that democracies do not go to war with each other
Key factors in democratic foreign policies include public opinion, legislative oversight, preference for diplomacy, economic interdependence, concern with human rights
Autocratic regimes are more likely to exhibit centralized decision making, less transparency, personalist alliances
Hybrid regimes (i.e. partially democratic, partially autocratic) complicate theories about how and why regime type matters in foreign policy
Are democracies more peaceful, or do they simply fight different kinds of wars?
Are democracies all alike? How much can we generalize about their foreign policy behavior?
What is a democracy?
Form of government based on rule by the people
Popular sovereignty as a defining characteristic
Closely aligned with liberal pollical principles; premised on individual liberty and equality
Difference between democracy and liberal democracy
According to Dahl, democracy is an ideal best approximated when 7 conditions are met:
1. Elected officials
2. Free and fair elections
3. Inclusive suffrage
4. Right to run for office
5. Freedom of expression
6. Alternative information
7. Association autonomy
Does Regime type matter?
IR scholars disagree about whether regime type determines foreign policy behavior or how much it matters
Realists downplay significance of regime type; all stats pursue power and security based on relative capabilities
Liberals believe that regime type shapes foreign policy via institutions, norms, and values
Constructivists attentive to impact of norms, culture, and identity
Critical theories wary of claims about democracies as proponents of ‘values-based’ foreign policy
What is the foreign policy bevahior of democracies?
Behavior is ostensibly shaped by liberal norms and values
Preference for diplomacy and multilateralism (UN, NATO)
Propensity for economic interdependence (free trade agreements)
Constraints on war initiation (public opinion, legislative oversight)
Concern with human rights (focus on upholding civil and political rights)
* "End of History" by Francis Fukuyama ○ Its the end of ideological history because there is no back and forth of ideas after the cold war Example: Post-Cold War Democracy Promotion * After the end of the cold war, there's more of a nudge to democracy UN becomes an extension of western states
What is the foreign policy bevahior of non-democracies?
More centralized decision making: leaders face fewer constraints (e.g. fewer electoral constraints)
Greater use of coercion and military force
Less transparency in decision making, less public accountability
Tendency to form personalist alliances (e.g. China-Russia)
Example: Russian invasion of Ukraine
Most of the public accounts suggest that Putin invaded Ukraine because his advisors said it would be a straight forward process
Fewer constraints
Lack of electoral accountability
Willing to use force and coercion to solve differences
Limited constraints on democracies
Less transparency in decision making
North Korea sending troops
Example: China and UN Peace Operations
Pushing back on human rights work and human peace operations
What did Borzel find?
Non-democracies may unintentionally promote democracy; enabling autocracy but not promoting it
Democracy promoters can inadvertently promote autocracy; democratization is a destabilizing process
How do hybrid regimes impact foreign policy analysis?
“the post-Soviet area, which became the target of EU and US effort at democracy promotion, has not made any significant progress towards democracy. The so-called newly independent states seems to have developed rather stable hybrid regimes ‘in the gray zone between democracy and autocracy’, which have been referred to as ‘semi-authoritarian, ‘electoral authoritarianism’, or ‘completive authoritarianism’”
Scholars often rely on a dichotomous understanding of regimes type
Many states are best understood as hybrid regimes (e.g. ‘competitive authoritarianism)
Hybrid regime combine democratic and autocratic characteristics
Democratic backsliding raises questions about what foreign policy behavior to expect
Example: Hybrid Regimes & NATO
Turkey and Hungry
What are the key points to culture, identity, and foregin policy?
Culture and identity are contested concepts in the field of foreign policy analysis; scholars disagree on how (or whether) they shape foreign policy
Some focus on culture and identity as sources of conflict, while focus on how they enable cooperation
Constructivists pay particular attention to culture and identity, treating them as social constructs that shape states’ foreign policy behavior
The concept of strategic culture provides a link between state identity and state actions
Culture and identity play an important role in threat perception, with important implications for foreign policy
How do culture and identity affect threat perception in foreign policy decision making?
Does Canada have a national identity that shapes Canadian foreign policy behavior?
How does identity affect foreign policy analysis?
Identity refers to individual and/or collective sense of self
In foreign policy analysis, identity refers to vary constructions of nation-and statehood
Nations are “imagined communities” inherently limited and sovereign (Anderson)
Norms are “collective expectations for the proper behavior of actors with a given identity” (Katzenstein)
Expect states to do something or not do something
Shared expectations based on their identity
How does culture affect foreign policy analysis?
Culture refers to shared values, beliefs, traditions, and practices of a society
In FPA, culture refers to the “collective models of nation-state authority or identity carried by custom or law” (Katzenstein)
Strategic culture links national identity with foreign policy behavior
What are the different theoretical persepctives for culture and conflict?
Nationalism and ethnocentrism; culture and identity as causes of conflict
Samuel Huntington’s post-cold war “clash of civilizations” thesis
○ Seen as controversial
§ Racism
○ Argues that instead of ideological conflicts its going to be cultural
○ Divides the world into 9 “civilizations”
○ We’re most likely to see conflict between the different civilizations, most likely at the borders
§ Some countries are prone to fighting more
Culture and identity as stable, fixed, and rooted in history
What are the different theoretical persepctives for soft power and culture?
Culture and political values as core elements of soft power
Importance of cultural diplomacy and identity projections
Influence via attraction and emulation
Culture and identity as sources of power and influences
What are the different theoretical persepctives for constructivism and culture??
Constructivists view culture and national identity as key explanatory factors in foreign policy decision making
Continuous interplay between domestic factors and international environment
Culture and identity as malleable social constructs that can change over time
Culture and identity can supplement or serve as alternatives to material explanations
Example: US support for the state of Israel
What does barnett argue for US-Israeli relations?
Barnett argues that US support for Israel cannot be explained by systemic or domestic factors alone
The “special relationship” is underpinned by a sense of shared identity
Perceptions of Israel as a liberal democracy is critical but subject to change
What does threat perception do for culture or identity?
“a common threat can reinforce or shape a common identity; it is through the recognition of a shared threat that actors acknowledge that they share not only interests but also values and beliefs”
Barnett
Example: Russia, Ukraine, And National Identity
Shows how national identity changes and how that effects relationships
Identity can change over time
Precursor to everything now
A story of military protection AND identity
What are security communities?
Constructist idea: Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett - Security Communities
Peaceful norms that prevail, not because it is in your interest but that it is the norm
“States within a pluralistic security community possess a compatibility of core values derived from common institutions, and mutual responsiveness - a matter of mutual identity and loyalty, a sense of “we-ness’ and are integrated to the point that they entertain ‘dependable expectations of peaceful change”
Still separate states
Dependable expectations of peaceful change; war is unthinkable, disputes resolved peacefully
Sense of ‘we-ness’ and shared identity
Trust and mutual consideration
Example: US and Canada
Example: NATO
Why do culture and identity matter in foreign policy?
- Affects what a country considers most important, how it understands its own interests (e.g. acquisition/control of new territory)
- Affects how a state goes about pursuing its interests (e.g. unilateral vs. multilateral approaches)
- Culture and identity shaped by foreign policy decisions, international environment (e.g. identity tends to be rational)
What is the political culture in Canadian foreign policy?
Stairs argues that Canadian foreign policy reflects national commitments to:
A pluralistic conception of politics; respect for diversity
Pragmatism and moderation
Compromise and the ‘limits of the possible’
Concern with the process and orderly brokering of interests
Example: Canada as a Middle Power
Liberal internationalism
“They learned it through conventional processes of politician socialization from the practice of politics in their domestic environment. Its ultimate origin, therefore, lies in the application of the basic principals of liberalism to the governance of a polity compose of too few people, of too heterogeneous a composition, living in a space too large, with a topography too varied”
Stairs
