Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) PDF

PPT: According to Waltz, 1996: IR focuses on how the interaction of states creates a structure (such as power distribution) that constrains their actions and influences their decisions, based on the assumption that states are unitary actors with a single motive, which is survival. This per...

PPT: According to Waltz, 1996: IR focuses on how the interaction of states creates a structure (such as power distribution) that constrains their actions and influences their decisions, based on the assumption that states are unitary actors with a single motive, which is survival. This perspective emphasizes that variations in external conditions can push or pull states in specific directions, leading to similar behaviors among states in comparable positions, despite their internal differences. In IR, the behavior of states is analyzed primarily at the international level, rather than the national level. Therefore, while IR explains how external forces shape states’ behavior, it often neglects internal factors, which can limit its ability to explain the effects of internal forces on foreign policy decisions. On the other hand, FPA seeks to address these limitations by focusing on the internal composition of states and how this influences foreign policy decisions. It suggests that the differences in state behavior arise from differences in internal structures, such as political institutions, leadership styles, and domestic political dynamics. Foreign policies are viewed as products of governmental actions which is why one must consider the performance of its government and how internal factors shape decision-making to understand a state’s foreign policy. Therefore, FPA would explain why states similarly placed in a system behave in different ways. Therefore, while IR and FPA are related, they are distinct areas of study within political science. IR provides insights into how external conditions shape state interactions, while FPA highlights the importance of internal factors in understanding foreign policy decisions.  Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is a distinct subfield within the study of International Relations (IR), as it primarily focuses on the decisions made in foreign policy, placing significant emphasis on the role of human decision-makers, which sets it apart from some IR theories that often overlook human factors. FPA emphasizes the continuous interaction between human actors and their domestic and international environments, recognizing that this dynamic shapes policy outcomes. Therefore, FPA diverges from other subfields of IR as it focuses on human agency and human accountability. It offers a distinct perspective on international relations that places human decision makers at the center of the analysis. FPA’s central contribution to IR theory is identifying human decision-makers as the intersection point between material and ideational factors influencing state behavior. This focus counters the limitations of traditional IR theories that often overlook human agency, resulting in incomplete explanations of change, creativity, persuasion, and accountability in international relations. Waltz v. Wendt: Hudson and Day, 2020 In Waltz’s neorealism, countries are seen as “black boxes,” meaning their internal details (like leaders or public opinions) aren’t considered essential. Instead, state behavior is shaped by the overall balance of power in the world system, which is anarchic (lacking a central authority). Waltz argues that states act primarily to maintain or challenge this power balance, focusing only on their material resources (like military strength or economic power). Wendt, however, argues that a country’s choices are shaped not just by material power but also by ideas, beliefs, and social norms. In his view, states’ preferences are constructed by shared ideas and identities, not just material factors. Wendt’s approach allows for a shift in international systems based on changing ideas rather than material changes, as many new behaviors and alliances emerged without major shifts in military power.  Therefore, FPA asserts that human beings are central to understanding international relations. It critiques both Waltz and Wendt for neglecting the individual decision-makers whose actions fundamentally shape foreign policy. FPA’s Critique: Hudson and Day, 2020 FPA focuses on the importance of human actions in international relations. It insists that to understand foreign policy and international interactions, we must prioritize the role of human decision-makers. It argues that only humans have ideas and are capable of creating and changing identities, social norms, and foreign policies. Therefore, when an analysis neglects human actors, it becomes overly mechanical and misses the dynamic processes that drive change in international relations, which is the reason why it criticizes Waltz and Wendt for ignoring human actors. Waltz's theory dropped both human actors and their ideas, resulting in a deterministic framework that can only change through material shifts in power. This leads to a view of the international system as a “machine” that is unresponsive to changes in human behavior or ideas. Wendt acknowledged ideas but dropped the human agents, leading to a similar mechanical system that suggests potential for a change but lacks the actual human agency needed to enact it. Independent variables: those that will explain International System (and its Actors)  Domestic Politics (and its Actors) Culture and Identity Individual (Psychological) Characteristics of Leaders Dependent variable: what to be explained Foreign Policy (of the Philippines) Our relations with other states and actors; how we arrive at certain foreign policies and decisions will be explained by the independent variables. Morin and Paquin adopted a broad definition of foreign policy: a set of actions or rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the international environment. Rationale (elements): Morin and Paquin, 2018 States are the only independent political authorities (you need to be independent and recognized). Therefore, foreign policy is the “actions of an independent political authority” because it is reserved to sovereign states. Since national governments are the legal custodians of their state’s sovereignty, they naturally represent the international personality or identity of their states. States embark on a set of actions and rules to arrive at a certain action or decision (if you're independent). Therefore, foreign policy also refers to “actions or rules governing the actions,” encompassing actions, reactions, or inaction that may be ad hoc or repeated. It can also be viewed as a state's vision of its role in the world, its national interests, and the principles it uses to protect those interests.  States’ environment of actions or rules-set are shaped by the domestic and international environment. Although foreign and public policy often overlap, scholars distinguish foreign policy as it sits at the intersection of international politics and domestic policy (Rosenau, 1971). Unlike domestic public policy, FPA must account for the international system and address issues beyond state borders. Therefore, while FPA draws from public policy methods, it must also navigate the unique demands of the international context, reflecting how states balance domestic priorities with external pressures in policy formulation. In Man, the State and War (1959), Kenneth Waltz identifies three levels of analysis: Individual level: Focuses on individuals, such as leaders. National level: Considers domestic factors within a state. International system level: Look at the structure of the international system. FPA mainly uses the individual and national levels, emphasizing an agent-centered approach. It examines actor-specific decisions and focuses on the decision-making process International relations (IR), on the other hand, primarily relies on the international level, using a structure-oriented approach. It focuses on the distribution of power and the impact of international norms on state interactions, without delving into the state's internal dynamics. Chapter 2 — The Individual Decision Maker: Cognitive Processes: Examines how leaders’ cognitive factors, like their learning ability, emotions, and biases, affect decision-making. Leader Personality and Orientation: Focuses on the leader’s personality, motivations, and orientations, using methods like psychobiography and analysis of decision-making styles. Chapter 3 — Group Decision Making: Small Group Dynamics: Studies how groups make decisions, focusing on structures, roles, and theories of group behavior (e.g., coalition theory, polythink, and newgroup analysis). Organizational Process: Analyzes organizational routines, incremental learning, and how procedures influence policy implementation. Bureaucratic Politics: Looks at how internal politics within bureaucracies (like competition over resources, influence, and power) affect decisions. Chapter 4 — Culture and Identity: Culture and Identity: Investigates the role of national identity, historical narratives, and values in shaping foreign policy, focusing on how a country’s cultural self-image influences its decisions. Chapter 5 — Domestic Political Contestation:  Domestic Political Contestation: Examines domestic factors like regime type, political interest groups, public opinion, and media that influence foreign policy by creating pressures from within. Chapter 6 — National Attributions and International System: National Attributes: Considers a nation’s unique characteristics (e.g., geography, resources, economic status) and how these shape its foreign policy. Regional and International Systems: Looks at the larger international context, such as global power distributions, alliances, and rivalries, that impact a nation’s foreign policy choices. Individual: we need to understand how the individual characteristics and political psychology of leaders shape or influence foreign policy decision making (Hudson and Day, 2020). Perceptions: This is the initial stage where we take in raw sensory information from our environment. Our perceptions are the foundational input that our brain receives, encompassing sights, sounds, smells, and other sensory data. Filters: Our brain doesn’t process all incoming sensory information equally; instead, it applies filters. These filters can be biases, stereotypes, and heuristics (mental shortcuts). They determine what we pay attention to and what we disregard, significantly shaping our understanding and awareness of our surroundings. Cognitions: The information that makes it past the filters becomes our cognitions. This refers to the thoughts and mental processes we actively engage with. Cognitions are the conscious awareness of the information that we consider relevant or important.  Mental Model: From our cognitions, we form mental models—frameworks based on our past experiences, beliefs, and values. These models simplify our understanding of how the world functions and guide our perceptions, thoughts, and behaviors. Constructs: Constructs are the foundational elements of our mental models, including beliefs, values, and memories. They shape how we interpret and understand our experiences and influence our overall worldview. Personality: Individual traits—such as being extroverted, introverted, cautious, or adventurous—form part of our personality. Personality influences our mental model and behaviors, affecting our reactions in different contexts and situations. Motivation/Emotion/State of the Body: Our physical and emotional states (like fatigue, stress, or excitement) have a direct impact on our perceptions and responses. For instance, feeling anxious might lead us to interpret a neutral situation as threatening. Character: This refers to deeper, more ingrained traits, such as honesty, integrity, and moral values. Character shapes our personality and influences our overall approach to life and decision-making. Situation: The context in which we find ourselves—such as the presence of other people, time constraints, roles we play, social norms, and the stakes involved—can significantly affect our attitudes and actions. The situation can prompt us to act in ways that may not align with our internal beliefs or personality. Attitudes: These are our specific feelings and thoughts about particular situations, influenced by our mental model, personality, motivations, and the context we find ourselves in. Attitudes can be positive, negative, or neutral, shaping how we approach different scenarios. Behavior and Speech Acts: Finally, our attitudes drive our behaviors and the way we communicate (speech acts). This is where everything culminates, as our perceptions, mental models, personality traits, emotional states, character, and situational context all influence how we act and express ourselves in the world. Situational example:  Based on what I’ve observed and read from a book. The answer is no, because like BBM, Robredo also intends to align with the United States to deal with the security vulnerability of our country due to the Chinese aggression in the WPS. They both recognize that PH alone isn’t capable enough to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty in the WPS, which is why they keep on seeking help and forming alliances with other states. When a leader governs a regime that imposes relatively few constraints on them. The type of political regime significantly influences the importance of understanding a leader’s personal characteristics in foreign policy analysis. In authoritarian regimes or one-man dictatorships, the leader often has minimal constraints on their power, making their personal traits crucial in understanding policy choices. Jerrold Post points out that analyzing leader characteristics is most vital when a leader holds dominant, unchecked control over the state, as their personality and decisions can shape policy directly and decisively.  However, while democracies typically impose more checks and balances on leaders, no regime type completely eliminates the influence of a leader’s personality. The leader's unique traits and style still affects both domestic and foreign policy. Therefore, while the regime type can shape the degree of influence a leader has, personal characteristics remain relevant across all forms of government. When a leader is interested in foreign policy. A leader’s interest in foreign policy significantly impacts decision-making dynamics. Leaders who are less interested in foreign affairs often delegate authority to advisors or ministers, making it essential to examine these subordinates’ characteristics since they become key influencers of policy. However, a leader may eventually intervene when his minister’s actions conflicted with his views, showing that even disinterested leaders may become involved when circumstances demand it. Additionally, leaders who feel a personal or emotional connection to certain issues, perhaps due to past experiences or significant memories, are more likely to influence foreign policy directly. This emotional investment can lead them to impose a unique personal imprint on policy choices, making their psychological background especially relevant in understanding their international actions. During crises. A third factor to consider is the role of crisis situations. In times of crisis, decisions are typically escalated to the highest levels of government, involving top leaders regardless of their usual interest in foreign policy. Crises, by their nature, demand the attention and involvement of those in ultimate authority. However, in extreme crises where a country’s survival is threatened, leaders may attempt to control their psychological impulses. Recognizing the high stakes, they may work to override personal biases or emotional reactions to minimize mistakes. This suggests that while leaders’ personalities often shape their decisions, severe crises can push them to adopt a more restrained and strategic approach. When decision making proceeds in an information-poor, ambiguous, or uncertain environment, or where long-term strategic planning is the task. Another context where a leader’s personal characteristics can significantly influence decision-making is in ambiguous or uncertain situations. When information is limited or contradictory, advisors may struggle to interpret the situation, prompting the leader to rely on personal judgment to establish a foundation for policy. In these cases, the leader’s individual traits—such as their risk tolerance, intuition, or strategic outlook—play a central role in shaping decisions. One specific type of ambiguous scenario is long-range planning, where leaders develop broad, strategic policies for an unpredictable future. Here, personal vision and foresight can heavily shape policy directions, as leaders set frameworks that may guide their country’s approach to international challenges for years to come. This highlights how, under uncertain conditions, leaders’ personal qualities can become essential in shaping foreign policy decisions.  When a leader is inexperienced in foreign policy. The fifth contextual variable in foreign policy decision-making is a leader’s level of diplomatic training. Leaders with formal diplomatic experience are often skilled at adapting their behavior to the demands of international situations, rather than letting personal characteristics overly influence their actions. In contrast, leaders without such training may rely more on personal views and biases, particularly if they lack sensitivity to the nuances of the international context. Leaders with diplomatic training are better at recognizing potential risks in different situations, which helps them make informed choices. Experienced leaders can assign tasks to advisors more wisely, choosing those best suited for specific challenges. This means they can trust their team to handle important issues effectively. Leaders with experience are more likely to seek out a variety of opinions and advice. This helps them consider different viewpoints, leading to more balanced and flexible decisions. When a leader has expertise in a particular issue area or region of the world. Expertise in specific issues or regions can influence foreign policy decisions, even if the leader isn’t the highest authority. When a leader or president lacks detailed knowledge about a particular situation, they may rely on experts to guide their choices. For example, presidents often look to military leaders for advice when considering military action. In some instances, military leaders might strongly advise against certain interventions. Additionally, influential figures can shape foreign policy significantly, even if they don’t hold the top position. This means that analysts need to pay attention to how leaders rely on experts when making decisions. By tracking these patterns, they can identify which leaders or advisors have a strong influence in specific situations. This helps determine whose insights should be looked at more closely, as these experts can significantly shape the final decisions. This focus on expert influence is an important factor to consider in understanding foreign policy. When a leader has a “hands-on” leadership style. The leadership style of a leader can significantly affect decision-making processes. Some leaders prefer to delegate tasks and let their team handle information processing, while others like to be more involved, sorting through the details themselves. A hands-on leadership style can result in a stronger influence of the leader’s personality on decisions. For example, Jimmy Carter was known for his micromanagement; he insisted on reading every policy paper, even taking a speed reading course to keep up. He acknowledged that his tendency to micromanage was seen as excessively controlling. (can lead to an autocratic or one man dictatorship) When certain group dynamics prevail. In exploring the eighth contextual variable, it's important to understand how group dynamics influence decision-making. In any group, whether small or large, members often take on specific roles that affect how decisions are made. For instance: Some individuals challenge ideas to stimulate discussion and critical thinking by acting as the devil’s advocate. Others may protect the group’s consensus by acting as the loyal mind-guard, avoiding dissenting opinions. Certain members consistently push for specific policies or approaches by acting as policy advocates. Lastly, some may act as diplomats or negotiators, helping to reach agreements within the group. When analyzing leadership, it's crucial to look at how these roles function within the group rather than viewing leaders in isolation. Understanding these dynamics provides a deeper insight into how decisions are made and how individual characteristics can impact foreign policy in a collaborative setting. This perspective highlights the importance of group interactions in shaping outcomes. State level: we need to understand how the domestic factors within the state shape or influence foreign policy decision making (Waltz, 1959; Hudson and Day, 2020). Small group dynamics: (non routine; crisis or high stakes) No matter how influential or mercenary, a single leader cannot make and implement foreign policy by himself or herself. Foreign policy decisions are always made in a group setting. Depending on the nature of the foreign policy problem at hand, group decision making in foreign policy may occur either among a small and selected group of individuals (small group dynamics) within a single organizational entity (organizational process), or between organizations (bureaucratic politics). Most high-level foreign policy decisions are made in small groups, especially in times of crisis or at high stake situations where a serious discussion demands the leader to sit around a table with a set of peers and engage in an open and thorough debate for policy options. However, the structure of a decision making group significantly affects how foreign policy choices are made, especially in groups where the leader holds most of the power in the decision-making process versus a group where the leader may have a considerable amount of power but must share with other influential members. The downside of small group dynamics is that they typically do not correct individual mistakes; instead, they often exacerbate them. This is because they’re prone to groupthink, where members of a cohesive group prioritizes harmony and consensus over critical thinking and realistic evaluation of alternatives. Therefore, when small groups make decisions, especially in high-pressure situations, the desire for unanimity can lead to poor decision-making, as members may ignore or dismiss dissenting viewpoints. This can result in significant failures, as the group's collective agreement may overshadow rational analysis. While group cohesiveness is a powerful source of emotional support for small group members, it also has the capacity to produce heightened psychological distress for its members as it interacts over time. The source of that stress is fear—fear of ostracism by the group. Groupthink often manifests in situations where there is a strong leader or when members feel pressured to conform to the group's prevailing opinion. As a result, important information may be overlooked, leading to flawed decisions that could have been avoided with more open discussion and critical evaluation of all options. It can also lead to a situation where people in a group avoid sharing their honest opinions or openly expressing doubts, especially when the majority of the group appears to have reached a consensus to avoid ostracism. Although there may certainly be sincere agreement with the emerging consensus, there'll be a significant degree of insincere agreement as well. Another risk in small group dynamics is polythink. Polythink is a concept that describes a group dynamic where members express a wide range of differing opinions and policy ideas. While it may seem positive at first because it encourages debate and dissent, polythink can lead to serious problems in decision-making, similar to those caused by groupthink. In a polythink scenario, each member has their own unique perspective, leading to a situation where no single view dominates the discussion, making it difficult for the group to come to a consensus. Polythink’s decision-making process often ends up adopting the lowest common denominator decision which refers to the basic compromise (bare minimum) that everyone agrees on but may not be the best solution. In summary, groupthink and polythink are positioned on the opposite ends of a spectrum (Mintz and Wayne, 2016). While groupthink involves excessive agreement and conformity, polythink results from excessive diversity and fragmented opinion. Both extremes can be detrimental to effective decision-making. Organizational behavior: (routine)  Though small group dynamics are extremely important in understanding foreign policy behavior, it's important to remember that most high-level foreign policy decisions are actually implemented through large executive organizations, such as departments and agencies. These organizations are the ones responsible for putting the decisions into action. These large organizations also collect and process the information needed to make decisions. Therefore, governments rely on these organizations to understand what is happening in the world and decide what action they'll take based on that information. While small groups play a significant role in decision-making, the actual implementation and information management are largely handled by larger government organizations. The government should not always be seen as a single, rational decision-maker. Rather, it should be seen as a national bureaucracy, a system of government organizations, agencies, and departments that work together to implement policies and make decisions, which includes multiple actors and levels of authority, each with specific roles, rather than acting as a single unified body. However, like individuals in a small group who may not always act rationally, various bureaucratic players within the government may also act in ways that are not fully rational or well-coordinated. Organizations are designed to fulfill specific roles that individuals alone may not achieve, highlighting their simplified nature compared to humans. While organizations consist of multiple people, their capabilities are limited and focused on their intended purpose. Although some organizations may seek to broaden their functions, such expansion is typically slow and constrained by their established skill sets. As a result, the functionality of organizations remains largely defined by their original objectives and expertise. However, the problem with organizational behavior is that the organization may view itself as the primary “stakeholder” within the bureaucracy, or as a lesser stakeholder. While primary stakeholders assert primary authority to make decisions, or at minimum, a veto power, lesser stakeholders may assert that no decision can take place without their consultation and input. Another risk is that large organizations are prone to "empire-building" (where individuals or groups within an organization try to gain excessive control) and "interorganizational xenophobia" (where there's distrust or hostility toward other organizations). They may also fall into a “deep state,” which refers to the idea that powerful government organizations may pursue their own agendas to the point where the preferences of elected officials and political appointees are subverted, undermining the will of the people and government. Lastly, organizations interpret orders according to their existing understandings and capabilities, which results in an implementation gap between what policymakers believe they have ordered and what organizations actually do to execute such orders.  Therefore, as organizational behavior usually relies on a routine, organizations develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) instead of reassessing or contemplating every new situation from scratch. However, the existence of an SOP can make organizations overly rigid by establishing fixed procedures that employees must follow, which can prevent them from adapting to new or unexpected situations that are not stated in the SOP. Furthermore, SOPs also enforce strict hierarchies, where questioning a superior’s decision making might harm careers, especially in cultures that discourage bypassing the chain of command. This creates a gap between decision-makers and those with practical knowledge, as subordinates might hesitate to share vital information due to fear of negative consequences. This situation highlights the necessity for whistleblower protections to enable individuals to raise important issues without risking their positions. Bureaucratic politics: (non routine; non crisis) Bureaucratic politics is a complicated intersection of small group dynamics, organizational processes, domestic political forces, and the personal characteristics of relevant individuals. Most bureaucratic politics occurs in interagency groups, which is meant to address significant government issues that aren't emergencies (non crisis). In bureaucratic politics, policy outcomes arise from bargaining among a small, powerful group of government actors, each with different preferences, abilities, and power. Participants choose their strategies and policy goals based on what they believe will best serve their organizational and personal interests. This bargaining happens through a pluralist give-and-take process where multiple stakeholders with differing interests and power levels come together to discuss and compromise on decisions, reflecting both the rules of the game and the power dynamics among participants. Meetings with top decision-makers typically occur after the key details have already been negotiated by their advisors. Real decision-making happens behind the scenes, and by the time the leader is involved, their advisors have usually reached a consensus. Consequently, the leader's role is primarily to approve the agreed-upon plans rather than actively shape them. Since this process is not controlled by a single individual and doesn't prioritize expert or rational decisions, it can lead to suboptimal outcomes that may not meet the goals of any participant which is the reason why the outcomes of bureaucratic politics are better viewed as resultants, as it reflects the lowest common denominator that most stakeholders can agree on, rather than a rational choice by a single actor. Organizations and bureaucracies put their own survival at the top of their list of priorities, and this survival is measured by relative influence compared to other organizations (“turf”). Therefore, they engage in the game of small thrones, where they compete for personal and organizational interests, ambitions, power and influence within each government, which may significantly impact a nation’s foreign policy than the game of national interest.  Stakeholders, or “players,” are individuals or groups with the power, expertise, or political influence to impact bureaucratic outcomes. Powerful stakeholders can assert authority in decision-making, demand to be consulted, or even veto certain decisions. However, they may try to undermine the claims of less powerful ones to ensure that their own interests are prioritized and to prevent challenges to their authority or position within the decision-making process. For bureaucracies to be effective players, they need to know the action channels—who to approach, where to go, and what steps to take to make things happen. Effective political players within large bureaucracies are also masters at bureaucratic manipulation. The most important tools of manipulation, especially if one can occupy a position of authority within the group, are the use of framing, rules, deadlines, information control, and agendas to obtain one’s desired ends.  At the domestic or state level, we must start identifying potential actors who may take part in the decision making process if we want to explore how societal power struggles affect foreign policy. Potential actor types might include domestic actors within the state, as well as non domestic actors whose actions have the power to shape and limit what happens within the country's domestic politics. As Robert Putnam in 1988 argued, the events and decisions in international politics often influence domestic politics, and vice versa. The distinction between foreign and domestic politics can blur, as developments in one arena can significantly affect the other. However, it's important to remember that foreign actors cannot directly dictate policy decisions within a sovereign nation. Therefore, when examining the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy, the primary focus is on how domestic factors shape a nation's foreign policy actions. Understanding these domestic factors allows us to predict how international actions will impact domestic political situations. In simple words, we examine the domestic "game board" to understand how it shapes a regime's actions in the international "game board," and then we look at how those international actions may impact domestic politics. Situational example: Regime strength and weaknesses: Strong regimes with firm support may feel more confident and bold in their policy choices. However, when a regime is forced to make significant compromises or policy changes, often those proposed by the opposition to maintain control, it signals that the regime is weak enough to be voted out of office or overthrown. Douglas Van Belle (1993) suggests that regime approaches to political challenges are motivated by two main factors: the desire to prevent harm to one’s political career, and the desire to enhance one’s standing in the political arena.  The leader's level of public approval influences which motivation becomes more important. When approval is moderately low, leaders may avoid taking risks to protect their position. But if approval is very low, they might take bold, riskier actions to regain support. Van Belle presented four basic strategies for securing one’s desired ends in the face of opposition. These four are: ignoring a domestic political challenge, direct tactics to quash that challenge, indirect tactics to do the same, and compromise. Opposition characteristics and activity: It refers to the strength, organization, and actions of the political opposition, which significantly influence how a regime chooses to respond. The regime's strategies, whether through direct suppression, indirect persuasion, or compromises, are shaped by the perceived threat level posed by the opposition and their ability to mobilize support or challenge the regime’s authority. Regime choice of responses: Based on its strengths and weaknesses and the opposition’s characteristics, the regime makes a choice on how to respond. Ignoring a domestic political challenge. Ignoring or refusing to engage with the opposition can be a powerful strategy because by not reacting, a regime can avoid giving more attention or credibility to a weak opposition. It will also be difficult for the media to promote a story when one side refuses to acknowledge or react to its opposition. Therefore, as Henry Queuille said, “there exists no problem that does not eventually end up being solved by an absence of solution” (Charillon, 2017). In other words, taking no action can be the best approach, as intervening might make things worse or give unnecessary attention to the problem. During Nixon's administration, he chose to ignore an issue, refusing to engage with his critics. This strategy worked, and the potential crisis faded away without causing any international or domestic problems. However, ignoring a domestic political challenge can be a dangerous strategy for a government because if it chooses to overlook important global events or its own responsibilities, it risks being seen as out of touch or neglectful. This can harm the government's reputation and sense of national pride. Furthermore, by not addressing certain issues, the government allows the opposition to take charge of those discussions. Therefore, if the opposition gains enough support from other groups, it could become a significant threat to the regime. Direct tactics to quash that challenge. As Queuille suggested, “politics is not the art of solving problems, but the art of silencing those who raise them.” In this context, "direct tactics" refer to methods used by those in power to control opposition by offering rewards or imposing punishments. Punishment of opposition actors can range from simple harassment to imprisonment and execution. One effective way to create chaos within the opposition is to identify and exploit any power struggles they have, then support one faction over the other. This can destabilize their unity. The rewards for those who align with the ruling power might include access to government officials, public praise, leadership roles, or even bribery in various forms.  However, direct tactics can also backfire because, while they may temporarily suppress opposition, they can have long-term consequences, such as removal from power, often through force or rebellion. Indirect tactics to quash the challenge. All indirect tactics aim for a common goal: to gather enough support on the issue at hand or on other issues that there is no need to change policy direction in response to opposition. The most commonly used tactic is to outpersuade the opposition through “narrative dominance,” which refers to the ability of a government or regime to shape the public discourse around foreign policy by effectively communicating its perspective through persuasive tactics, such as speeches and public engagements, to present compelling narratives that justify their policies, while also undermining the opposition's arguments through subtle or direct attacks on its motives and methods (Dimitriu and de Graaf, 2016). Massie (2016) pointed out that unpopular policies can still succeed because of narrative dominance, especially when the public isn't actively protesting or engaged in foreign policy. In these situations, political elites can maintain strong agreement among themselves, which allows them to manipulate public opinion through their resources and media access, thus sustaining support for their policies despite any dissatisfaction among the public. In narrative dominance, it's about which side can present its story more convincingly to the public. A second indirect tactic is to form alliances with other groups within the society to support the regime’s position in exchange for some type of consideration. In open societies, powerful governments often try to persuade influential senators, grant regime access to journalists willing to paint the regime in a friendly light, and support researchers whose work aligns with their interests. In less open societies, the alliances formed can be more questionable as leaders might grant special privileges to criminal bosses or regional warlords in exchange for their support. Another tactic is to seek support from foreign groups or countries, which can include everything from positive statements to actual military assistance. A third indirect tactic is to somehow deflect the attention of the nation from the struggle between the regime and its opposition to a new focus that promises to rally increased support for the government. The government could reorganize itself by removing unpopular members and bringing in new, popular ones. The regime could also engage in tough talk with traditional adversaries and even engage in dramatic international action to deflect attention from the problems of its homeland. Therefore, shifting focus to external threats can unite the public and boost support by creating a sense of national pride, distracting them from domestic problems. A final category of regime strategy is that of compromise. A regime often leaves some flexibility in its policies to allow for small compromises, making it seem like they're addressing opposition concerns. Sometimes, these minor policy changes can later be reversed once the opposition seems to have diffused its criticism. Foreign policy effect and response: The impact of domestic political competition on foreign policy depends on the strategies the regime uses. Some strategies may not change foreign policy at all, while others can lead to significant changes. Ignoring a domestic political challenge. If the regime ignores the opposition, it will probably have little impact on foreign policy. Direct tactics to quash that challenge. Punishing the opposition may also have minimal effects unless it significantly weakens the regime's resources or support, forcing it to reduce its foreign policy activities. However, if the regime successfully co-opts or bribes parts of the opposition, it can gain confidence and continue or even enhance its foreign policy. Indirect tactics to quash the challenge. Some indirect tactics will have a bigger impact on foreign policy than others, depending on the specific situation. When the regime tries to persuade the opposition to "stay the course" or to remain supportive of its existing policies, by making a small adjustment or to show a willingness to listen, it only results in only small, temporary changes to foreign policy since it’s only a way for the regime to appear accommodating without making substantial changes. When a government seeks to gain support from certain groups by offering something in return (a "quid pro quo"), the impact on foreign policy can vary. If the groups being targeted do not care about foreign policy, the government's foreign policy is unlikely to change. However, if the interests of these groups involve foreign policy matters, then the government may need to adjust its foreign policy to align with those interests in order to secure their support. Essentially, the influence of these groups on foreign policy depends on how relevant their interests are to the government's international actions. However, gathering new international support may have foreign policy consequences. When a regime seeks allies, it may need to overlook or downplay the negative actions of those allies. This often creates tensions or contradictions in the regime's foreign policy, as it balances its interests with the need to maintain a certain image or stance on global issues. Shifting public focus away from domestic issues often involves foreign policy because it can bring bigger rewards than dealing with local matters, like changes in government. When there's a direct threat to national security or an attack on a country's pride, it can lead to strong unity among the public and higher approval ratings for leaders. This phenomenon is known as the "rally ‘round the flag" effect. Taking bold actions on the global stage can quickly increase domestic support, even if that support is temporary.  Compromise can have minor or major effects on foreign policy, depending on the situational context. However, major changes in foreign policy are rarely forced by domestic opposition due to the serious political consequences that would follow for the regime, as foreign policy is closely linked to national security. A vertical decision making framework with a passive head of state, risks of governance by SOPs. A formal interaction framework paired with a decentralized decision-making process can lead to governance based on standard operating procedures. While this approach enables quick and efficient responses to routine issues, it may become problematic during crises, as it lacks the flexibility needed for more complex, urgent situations. A horizontal decision making framework with a passive head of state, risks of bureaucratic politics. In a competitive and decentralized framework, there is a risk of fostering bureaucratic rivalries. While competition can be useful for showcasing diverse opinions, it may result in incoherent policies when used as a decision-making method, as participants choose their strategies and policy goals based on what they believe will best serve their organizational and personal interests. A vertical decision making framework with an active head of state, risks of authoritarian personality. If the decision making framework is rigid, it will prevent a genuine confrontation of ideas and make it difficult to challenge the president’s assumptions. This formalism can lead to analytical errors because it creates an environment where dissenting opinions and alternative perspectives are discouraged or overlooked. When decision-making processes are rigid, individuals may feel pressured to conform to existing views rather than critically evaluate or challenge assumptions.  A horizontal decision making framework with an active head of state, risks of groupthink. Lastly, a decentralized and collegial framework is especially susceptible to groupthink, as described by Irving Janis. In such cases, the desire for consensus can overshadow the group's goals, leading members to prioritize harmony over critical evaluation. This fixation on cohesion can suppress differing opinions and result in poor decision-making due to clouded judgment. National attributes: National attributes often include elements of what we would consider to be the power of the nation-state. Geographic Size and Configuration: Size and geography strongly influences a country’s foreign policy and may affect both nation-state goals as well as decision making processes. Small states: Alignment with a neighboring large state may be an attractive foreign policy direction for a small state. If a small state happens to find itself between two large states that are in conflict, a position of neutrality might appear more desirable. However, such neutrality may need the blessing of geography to make that stick, which means that the closer a state is to neighboring countries in conflict, the harder it is to stay neutral. Being nearby often brings pressure to pick a side, and it can make the country more vulnerable to influence or even attacks. Therefore, geography can either help a state maintain neutrality or make it much harder to do so. Small states typically don’t have the power to reward or punish other countries, so they focus on using diplomacy to influence others through persuasion or protest. Poorer small states often have limited government staff and fewer embassies around the world, which reduces their ability to engage in global affairs. This smaller bureaucracy means they may lack the resources to build many international relationships, limiting the reach and impact of their foreign policy. Large states: Large states are more likely to be active in foreign policy. As large states develop more resources and power, their foreign policy goals often expand too. They tend to become more assertive and active in international matters as they gain new capabilities such as stronger military, advanced technology, economic growth, or increased diplomatic influence. Large nations are generally tougher to defeat in wars because of their size and resources. However, this same size can make it challenging for them to maintain unity among their diverse populations. Additionally, larger countries are more likely to have valuable natural resources, simply because they cover more land. Geography: Geography strongly influences a country’s foreign policy. Natural resources are one factor; if a country lacks certain resources, it may need to rely on other nations to meet its needs. Additionally, geography affects foreign policy through access to ports, waterways, and strategically important land areas. These geographic features are crucial for trade, security, and influence, shaping a country’s interactions and priorities in international relations. Some regions become conflict zones due to their strategic high ground between rival countries. Therefore, whoever controls the high ground, controls peace or war between the two nations because of the military advantage they possess. Highlands may also be important for their water resources. For instance, rivers and their tributaries such as smaller rivers and streams that originate in these areas can be essential for the survival and economy of nearby countries, making control over them even more contentious as water is essential for survival. Access to the sea is another vital aspect of geopolitics. Landlocked countries often depend on coastal neighbors for trade access, which can lead to economic influence from those neighbors. Even countries with coastlines can face difficulties, such as seeking warm-water ports if their natural ports are often frozen. Strategically important “choke points,” or strategic narrow routes providing passage through or to another region, in global shipping routes are typically guarded by the navies of countries reliant on international trade. Control over these choke points is critical for protecting maritime interests and ensuring the free movement of goods. Disputes over small islands claimed by multiple nations often lead to conflicts, especially because the Law of the Sea provides special economic rights around these areas. In the twenty-first century, many active island conflicts are concentrated in Asia. These disputes involve several regions where countries claim the same islands, leading to tensions and potential conflicts. Such territorial disagreements are significant flashpoints in contemporary geopolitics in the region.  Being a larger island country or one separated from others by oceans can significantly influence a nation’s foreign policy. For instance, a country's geographical isolation might lead to a reluctance to form close alliances that could compromise its autonomy. This separation can provide a sense of security, making nations less inclined to engage in conflicts involving distant powers. Countries without land borders often have different foreign policy considerations due to their geographic position. Therefore, countries without land borders are less likely to get caught up in conflicts that arise between neighboring countries. Their geographic separation can reduce the chances of direct military confrontations and allow them to focus more on diplomatic relations and trade without the immediate pressure of border disputes. On the other hand, countries with many borders tend to be involved in more regional conflicts than those with fewer borders, as being close to other nations can increase the chances of disputes and conflict. Borders that are drawn based more on maps than the actual conditions and cultures can have significant effects on a country’s foreign policy, especially when drawn by colonial powers. Such borders may separate groups or tribes that should be together, force long standing enemies to coexist within the same boundaries, and ignore cultural and linguistic differences. Therefore, when colonial powers set boundaries that split communities or impose different languages, it makes it hard for those communities to unite. The effects of these colonial border decisions can lead to ongoing tensions and complicate national identities. Natural Resources: Natural resources, or the lack thereof, may also play a role in foreign policy. Natural resources, particularly energy resources, can have a significant impact on a country's foreign policy. Nations with growing energy needs may seek to establish relationships with other countries to secure access to oil and gas. This can influence their international decisions and actions, as they navigate complex relationships based on energy dependencies. Additionally, competition for energy resources can elevate the importance of smaller nations in global politics. As a country becomes more energy independent, it may feel less pressured to engage in specific regions or conflicts. Natural resources other than oil can also significantly affect foreign policy. For instance, countries with important minerals or metals necessary for advanced weapons technology may influence international relations due to their strategic value. Nations with natural uranium deposits can impact foreign policy by either developing their own nuclear capabilities or selling uranium to other countries. Additionally, rare earth metals are vital for modern technology and can be used as tools in diplomatic negotiations. The availability or restriction of these resources can shape the actions and decisions of countries in the global arena.  Natural resources can also include arable land and agricultural capability. Some countries are referred to as "breadbaskets" because of their fertile land and strong agricultural output. While this title can be positive, it may also lead to foreign policy challenges, as nations without such resources may be tempted to take over these "breadbasket" regions through force. In recent times, instead of outright invasion, some countries are leasing or purchasing arable land in other nations to secure food production that they cannot achieve domestically. This trend has led to significant investments in agricultural land by countries seeking to bolster their food supply, which has raised concerns about the implications of such actions on global land ownership and agricultural practices. Environmental issues such as soil erosion, desertification, and other forms of degradation can pose national security concerns for affected countries. Nations losing arable land due to expanding deserts or facing the threat of rising sea levels may experience significant challenges related to food production and stability. Research suggests that agricultural output may vary significantly across different regions over the coming decades, impacting food security and overall national stability. Water is becoming an increasingly vital natural resource. Access to fresh water from rivers and aquifers is essential for many countries, especially those in arid regions, and disputes over this resource are becoming more common. The ability to negotiate water rights can significantly impact peace and relations between nations. To manage water resources effectively, some countries have invested heavily in infrastructure such as dams to control water flow. In contrast, other nations, seeking to reduce their dependence on shared water sources, are developing technologies like desalination plants or facilities that turn seawater water into fresh water for human consumption. Additionally, global changes, like the melting of polar ice caps, can affect ocean currents. These changes might lead to higher or lower shipping costs and can influence trade relationships between countries. Demographics: The characteristics of a nation’s population may also have foreign policy repercussions. The concept of “lateral pressure,” introduced by Nazli Choucri and Robert North in 1975, explains that countries with high population growth rates often struggle to meet the needs of their citizens. As a result, they may seek resources from abroad through various means, including trade, migration, colonization, or conflict. In contrast, wealthier nations facing declining birth rates may experience what could be termed “lateral vacuum.” Therefore, people from high-growth, poorer nations seek better opportunities in these negative-growth, richer countries, making migration issues increasingly prominent in domestic politics, with clear foreign policy consequences. Issues of demographic change are increasingly significant in international relations and have been referred to as “wombfare.” Graying powers, or countries with declining populations may see changes in the mix of ethnic groups within their borders. As people leave or as some groups have fewer children, the overall population decreases, leading to a different ethnic composition. For instance, certain communities may grow smaller while others might become more prominent. Conversely, nations with higher birth rates can influence their neighbors by increasing their populations more quickly. This can lead to migration, where people move from one country to another in search of better opportunities. As these countries grow, they may also exert more cultural or political influence on nearby nations, affecting everything from trade to diplomatic relations. Additionally, as populations age, countries might become less aggressive in foreign policy, prioritizing economic security over military strength. Overall, as Haas in 2007 has argued, “Global aging has key ramifications for the future of international relations.” Population dynamics involve more than just growth or decline; various factors also play a role. These include the age and gender distribution of the population, wealth distribution, ethnic and linguistic diversity, religious differences, and the overall health and education levels of the population. For instance, while India and China have similar population sizes, China is often seen as a stronger contender for superpower status. This is partly due to factors like higher life expectancy and literacy rates in China, especially among women. In contrast, India faces challenges such as high child malnutrition rates and greater ethnic and religious diversity, which can affect its stability and development. China and India’s gender distribution is extremely abnormal, which affects their foreign policies. Cultural preferences for sons and policies like China’s one-child rule have led to many more boys being born than girls. This results in a situation where many "bare branches," or young men typically at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, remain unmarried, creating social instability. To address this, governments often recruit these young men into the military, sending them away from their communities, and may also resort to more authoritarian measures to manage the social unrest caused by this surplus of young men. Overall, an abnormal gender ratio can contribute to instability that may affect international relations and conflicts involving these nations. Health crises such as HIV/AIDS and drug-resistant diseases are vital factors in a nation’s profile. In Botswana, a large number of young adults are infected with HIV, which weakens the nation's economic and social capacity. Moreover, international migration and human trafficking affect both sending and receiving countries. For example, the Philippines restricts the number of nurses who can work overseas to avoid losing too many healthcare workers, which would negatively impact its own healthcare system. Political System: The type of political system governing the nation-state may also have consequences for foreign policy. Morin and Paquin in 2018, argues that the type of political system significantly influences foreign policy, particularly through the behavior of institutions. In inclusive political systems, policies tend to be designed to benefit the majority of individuals, even if this means minimal profits for most and significant losses for a minority. This is especially true in electoral systems where diverse constituencies might dilute the influence of specific interest groups, leading to broader, more generalized policies.  On the other hand, autocratic regimes often prioritize the interests of ruling minorities. They are more likely to implement protectionist measures, such as high customs tariffs and subsidies for industries that support the government. These policies favor the elite and can distort the economic landscape in ways that serve the regime's interests rather than the broader population's needs. Thus, the structure of political institutions plays a crucial role in shaping the nature and direction of a nation's foreign policy. One of the few regularities identified by International Relations is the “democratic peace.” It has been observed that democracies typically do not fight other democracies. Furthermore, the political system must be a “true” democracy, not a “pseudodemocracy.” Several theories explain why the democratic peace exists. Some suggest that the transparency in democracies fosters empathy between democratic nations. Others argue that voters hold politicians accountable, discouraging unnecessary conflicts. Additionally, there may be a shared cultural perspective among democracies that reduces the likelihood of conflict. Some researchers even propose that the higher status of women in democratic societies contributes to this phenomenon (Maoz and Russett, 1993; Fukuyama, 1998). However, researchers found out that there is no significant difference in the frequency of conflict between democracies and nondemocracies. In fact, democracies engage in conflict with nondemocracies as often as nondemocracies do with one another (Merritt and Zinnes, 1991; Bremer, 1993; Dixon, 1993). Military Capabilities: A nation-state’s level of military capabilities is an important national attribute with obvious impact on foreign policy. Superiority in arms can often lead to a foreign policy stance of “coercive diplomacy,” where one can press for one’s own advantage more aggressively than otherwise. In this context, a country may use its military strength to apply pressure on other nations to achieve its goals or to negotiate terms that favor its interests. Essentially, the stronger military capability allows a nation to be more assertive and aggressive in its diplomatic efforts, potentially forcing others to concede to its demands. Military capabilities can also substitute for international support; a country may invade another without the support of the United Nations or the international community more broadly. A country may be able to ignore many United Nations resolutions condemning its actions because of its military capabilities (not to mention the support of militarily empowered allies, such as the United States). Weapons of mass destruction belong in a category of their own. Weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear and biological weapons, are key indicators of military strength. While chemical weapons can be produced by many countries, they offer limited strategic value if both sides possess them. In contrast, nations with nuclear weapons are nations to be reckoned with or cannot be ignored in a military and diplomatic sense, even if they are poor as dirt, which means that nuclear weapons still enhance a nation's influence and military standing, regardless of its economic status. The existence of nuclear weapons can significantly alter foreign relations and geopolitical dynamics, prompting neighboring nations to consider developing their own capabilities in response to perceived threats. Aside from having a strong military, it's important to consider how much influence the military has in making foreign policy decisions. In some authoritarian regimes, the government relies heavily on the military to maintain power, giving it a central role in shaping foreign policy wherein the views of the military may be given priority over the views of other subnational actors. However, due to this potential for exaggerated influence, some regimes may actually try to wreck the power of their military by jailing or executing military leaders. Economic Capabilities: How do economic capabilities affect foreign policy? One aspect to examine is dependence; that is, nonreciprocal needs for the economic inputs of others. Economic dependence is easily seen in the economies of certain less-developed countries. A dependent economy is usually characterized by reliance on the export of a single or a small set of commodities or raw materials used to manufacture consumer products (as opposed to manufactured goods). Unless the export is a scarce resource possessed by few countries, it is not likely such an economy will become rich through such exports. The low prices of commodities, combined with fluctuating market values, complicate government financial planning in less-developed countries. Additionally, a lack of economic diversification increases their vulnerability to shortages of essential goods needed for societal functioning. Such vulnerable economies are also in a subservient position to nation-states that consume their goods; if relations sour, trade may be used as a weapon, which would be a hardship for the more dependent country. Trade dependence may create foreign policy compliance (Richardson and Kegley, 1980). Outsourcing labor is a significant issue in the global economy, where companies hire workers in other countries for much lower wages than domestic employees. This practice can boost profits, as tasks such as reading X-rays or providing technical support are often outsourced. However, it also places a strain on society, as more social welfare funding is needed to support workers who lose their jobs due to outsourcing. There is ongoing debate between the ideals of free trade and fair trade, which has important implications for foreign relations. The study of economic statecraft is increasingly important in a world with multiple power centers and rising trade tensions. It examines how different actors can affect the global economy using tools like aid, loans, investments, and sanctions, with their effectiveness often depending on a country's economic strength. Wealthy nations can leverage their resources to achieve foreign policy objectives, which can include swaying elections in other countries by providing funding or support to political parties or candidates that align with their interests. They may also support rebel groups in conflicts by supplying money, weapons, or other resources to promote a change in leadership or policy that favors their goals. This approach enables them to influence political outcomes and advance their interests without direct military involvement. Globalization has introduced new forms of economic dependence, interdependence, and capabilities. Technology has amplified globalization’s impact, enabling rapid global communication and influencing foreign policy. News and ideas now spread instantly, giving rise to phenomena like "Twitter Revolutions." For instance, the global release of sensitive information can trigger political uprisings and influence international events. Additionally, globalization has brought new actors into the international arena, affecting the way foreign policy is shaped. The core idea of FPA fundamentally rejects simplistic theories of economic determinism, which believes that the economy of a state is the most important factor in individuals' and states' decisions. However, foreign policy analysts must not ignore the role of economic capabilities and interactions in shaping foreign policy. In global economics, significant players include not just nation-states, but also multinational corporations and intergovernmental organizations like the WTO. Additionally, subnational entities, such as states and provinces, can also be influential economic actors on the global stage. Students of international politics have traditionally considered the wealth of nations to understand their actions. During the Cold War, countries were classified into categories: First World (developed Western nations), Second World (Eastern bloc economies), Third World (underdeveloped nations), and Fourth World (the least developed nations). However, in today’s globalized economy, these categories are less relevant, and it's important to analyze economic dependence and interdependence to grasp how economic factors influence foreign policy. International level: to understand and explain foreign policy, the international context must be taken into account. The distribution of power between countries and the influence of transnational stakeholders and intergovernmental organizations partially determine foreign policy (Morin and Paquin, 2018). The international system represents the broadest perspective in studying international politics. This level of analysis examines the overall structure and interactions of the entire system made up of all countries. Therefore, systems-level thinking is not focused on foreign policy per se, but rather on the context in which foreign policy is made (Hudson and Day, 2020). The distribution of power capabilities in the international system determines the number of the great powers and, consequently, the polarity of the international system. If the great powers are more than two, the system will be multi-polar; if they are two, it will be bipolar, while systems with only one great power are considered unipolar. In a neorealist view, the international system is often seen as anarchic because there is no global authority to enforce rules or ensure that countries comply with agreements. This lack of central control leads to behaviors like the security dilemma: when one country builds up its defenses to feel safer, it can unintentionally make other countries feel threatened, causing them to increase their own defenses. This cycle can actually make everyone less secure. In such a system, cooperation is hard because there's no guaranteed enforcement of agreements, making trust fragile. Powerful countries are often balanced by others, either individually or through alliances. Smaller nations may seek protection by aligning with more powerful countries. Additionally, altruistic actions—like a country choosing to limit fishing to conserve resources—might backfire if others don’t follow suit, potentially putting the altruistic country at a disadvantage. Neorealism, therefore, emphasizes not the specific actions of foreign policy, but rather the conditions in which countries make those decisions. Scholars have developed various ways to classify international systems based on key attributes such as the number of actors, power distribution, and alliance structures. For instance, they might look at the number of major powers, or “poles,” within a system to determine if it’s unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. Another aspect is the strength and presence of supranational organizations like the United Nations, which can influence how states interact. Additionally, the degree of commitment to alliances, whether formal or informal, plays a role in shaping the system’s dynamics. Scholars also consider the number and types of issues that are contested in the system, as these can impact foreign policy approaches. Maurice East in 1978, for example, suggests that when there are more and varied issues at stake, states are likely to engage in more bargaining and compromise, leading to a decrease in rigid ideological stances in foreign policy (more flexible). Through analyzing these attributes, scholars can hypothesize how each factor might shape the behaviors and interactions of states within the system and the effect of its value on foreign policy. From Morin and Paquin, 2018: Neorealism, also known as structural realism, was initially developed by Kenneth Waltz in Man, the State, and War (1959) and later expanded in Theory of International Politics (1979). This theory has become a leading structural approach in international relations, furthered by scholars like Robert Gilpin, Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer. Neorealism focuses on the material structure of the international system, particularly the distribution of military and economic resources among sovereign states. According to neorealists, a state's position in the international structure and its behavior are determined by its material resources relative to other states, rather than by its internal characteristics. Waltz’s theory posits that all states are essentially alike in function—they are "homogeneous units" that act similarly to survive in an anarchic system. This structure, rather than any unique national qualities, dictates state behavior, treating states as functionally equivalent entities conditioned by the pressures of the international system. Neorealism, as a dominant theory in international relations, rests on five interconnected assumptions that define its view of global politics. First, it sees the state as the primary unit in international relations, with other actors playing limited roles. Second, states are assumed to act rationally and in self-interest, constantly seeking to maximize their own utility. Third, survival is the core objective of every state; all actions, whether cooperative or conflictual, are ultimately aimed at enhancing the state’s chance of survival. Fourth, neorealism argues that states operate in a self-help system due to the absence of a supranational authority that can ensure their security, making the international environment inherently anarchic. Finally, in this self-help world, states are locked in constant competition over material resources, where gains for one state often mean losses for another, creating a zero-sum game. These principles define an international system driven by security concerns, power struggles, and a fundamental emphasis on survival. In neorealism, the balance of power theory is fundamental. This theory posits that states naturally work to counter a rising power by forming alliances, thereby securing themselves in an anarchic international system. When one state becomes too powerful, others respond by balancing against it, often through military alliances, to prevent any single state from dominating (Waltz 1979; Brooks and Wohlforth 2008; Parent and Rosato 2015; Oskanian 2016). On the other hand, bandwagoning is the opposite of balancing and describes a different strategy. Rather than opposing a powerful state, weaker states may choose to align with it. This occurs when a weaker state calculates that the costs of resisting a hegemonic power are too high and that supporting it offers better material benefits and a greater chance of survival. By bandwagoning, a weaker state hopes to gain protection and resources by siding with the stronger state (Walt 1988; Schweller 1994, 1996; Mearsheimer 2001; Grigorescu 2008; Ratti 2012). These two strategies reflect the varied ways states navigate power dynamics in a self-help international system.  In response to the challenges posed by unipolarity, some neorealists refined the traditional balance of power argument by introducing the concept of "soft-balancing." This approach suggests that states adapt to the dominance of a single superpower, through non-military means. Rather than engaging in direct military confrontation, states employ a combination of diplomatic, economic, and institutional strategies to resist or constrain a hegemony (dominant power). As Stephen Walt describes, the goal of soft-balancing is to "tame" a superpower by forming alliances, engaging in multilateral diplomacy, and leveraging international institutions to limit the unilateral actions of the superpower (Paul 2005; He and Feng 2008; Saltzman 2012; Walt 2005; Cantir and Kennedy 2015; Friedman and Long 2015). This perspective highlights how states navigate the realities of a unipolar world while seeking to maintain their interests and influence through means other than military confrontation. In the final analysis, while national characteristics (country's resources, geography, and political structure) and systemic attributes (type of international system and distribution of power) are critical in FPA, there is an even more profound force at play—the influence of human ideas, creativity, and will. Leaders and policymakers, guided by their values, experiences, and visions, shape foreign policy in ways that cannot always be predicted by national or systemic factors alone. Their ability to innovate, take risks, and act on unique insights can drive a nation’s approach to international relations in unexpected and transformative directions. Ultimately, it is these human elements that can redefine alliances, create new paths for diplomacy, and shift a country’s role on the global stage.  Domestic (Second Level): Advantage Disadvantage Emphasizes explanation over description. Tendency to overemphasize uniqueness of a unit. The sub-systemic level (focusing on individual Although, focusing on the nation as an actor allows us to nations or actors) is better at explaining why avoid inaccurate homogenization (treating all states as countries make the decisions they do. It allows for the same), it can also lead us to exaggerate the differences among sub-systemic actors. This tendency a deeper understanding of foreign policy-making to "over-differentiate" is particularly concerning because processes, diving into the inner workings of it can result in Ptolemaic parochialism. Therefore, governments and the people who make these when differences are overly emphasized among nations, decisions. While it may not give a big picture view, an observer becomes biased, often attributing positive it offers deeper insight into the motivations, traits to their own country while viewing the same decisions, and actions of specific actors, like characteristics as negative in others, particularly in adversaries. By exaggerating these differences, we risk individual states or leaders. creating biases that distort our understanding of international relations. Emphasizes uniqueness of a unit. Tells nothing about trends. One of the primary advantages of the third image in international relations is that it allows for While the state level of analysis is valuable for significant differentiation among the actors within understanding individual countries,it doesn't provide the system. Unlike theories that assume insight into broader trends in international relations. By uniformity among states, this perspective focusing on individual countries, it misses how their acknowledges that each state operates with its actions fit into larger patterns, like changes in power unique set of interests and behaviors. This dynamics or emerging global issues. This oversight can differentiation encourages a more nuanced lead to an incomplete understanding of global affairs. examination of each actor, leading to deeper insights into their motivations and actions. As Hans Morgenthau points out, when observers take the time to analyze states in greater detail, they can produce more valid and meaningful generalizations that enhance our understanding of international relations. International (Third Level): Advantage Disadvantage Emphasizes description over explanation. Tendency to overemphasize generalizability of a unit. The systemic level of analysis provides a broad and comprehensive picture of how international relations By downplaying and denying the differences among work as a whole. It looks at the global stage, how nations, or suggesting that it’s nearly impossible to observe these differences, we end up with a countries interact, and the overall patterns of simplified, uniform view of countries in the behavior among nations. international system. Focusing too much on the broader system leaves little room for recognizing Emphasizes generalizability of a unit among individual state behaviors, which can create the others. impression that all leaders think and act similarly, mainly prioritizing power in their interests. The systemic level of analysis often necessitates Tells nothing about the uniqueness of each unit. the assumption of uniformity among national actors. By emphasizing the generalizability of a unit’s The system-oriented approach often overlooks the behavior among others, we can apply the internal differences within individual nations, resulting observations made from observing one country to in a "black box" or "billiard ball" view of national others. This uniformity allows researchers and actors. This means that states are treated as uniform policymakers to identify common patterns and entities, ignoring the complexities and variations that strategies that many states follow, which can lead to exist within them. The "black box" metaphor comes broader conclusions about how states interact in the from behaviorist psychology, where observers focus international arena. only on the visible interactions between states, rather than their internal thoughts and motivations. Similarly, the "billiard ball" concept suggests that states are solid entities that interact without considering what happens inside them. This lack of attention to internal differences can oversimplify the complexities of international relations. No matter how good their intentions, policy makers must bear in mind the implications of the third image, which can be stated in summary form as follows: Each state pursues its own interests, however defined, in ways it judges best. Force is a means of achieving the external ends of states because there exists no consistent, reliable process of reconciling the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise among similar units in a condition of anarchy. A foreign policy based on this image of international relations is neither moral nor immoral, but embodies merely a reasoned response to the world about us. The third image describes the framework of world politics, but without the first and second images, which focus on individual state behavior and the impact of domestic factors, there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy; the first and second images describe the forces in world politics, but without the third image it is impossible to assess their importance or predict their results (Kenneth Waltz, 1958). Additional explanations: Interaction of States: IR studies how countries engage with each other, and these interactions form a structure that influences their behavior. Structure (such as Power Distribution): The structure refers to how power is distributed among states, which can be unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. This distribution shapes how states act and interact. For example, in a unipolar system, a single dominant state has significant control over international dynamics, while in a multipolar system, multiple powers interact more complexly. Constraints Actions and Influences Decisions: The structure limits the actions states can take and guides their decision-making processes. For instance, states may avoid certain aggressive actions due to the fear of retaliation from more powerful states or the formation of alliances against them. Unitary Actors with a Single Motive (Survival): The assumption that states are unitary actors means they are treated as single entities with coherent interests, primarily motivated by the need to survive in an anarchic international system. This is a central tenet of realist theory in IR, where the pursuit of security and power is emphasized. READINGS: Morin and Paquin I. Foreign Policy Analysis FPA provides a unique opportunity to integrate analysis at different levels. At the crossroads between the theories of international relations and public policy analysis: ○ FPA is not limited to the study of the international system that fails to take account of its component parts, or to the study of one-off decision-making processes in the international context. ○ Instead, FPA focuses on the continuous interaction between actors and their environment. To understand and explain foreign policy, the international context must be taken into account. ○ The distribution of power between countries and the influence of transnational stakeholders and intergovernmental organizations partially determine foreign policy. Although FPA does not have its own specific level of analysis, it can be defined by its dependent variable, namely, foreign policy itself. FPA seeks to explain how one or more public authorities adopt a given policy in certain conditions. ○ Starting point is always the same: identify a foreign policy and then try to explain it. II. Definition of Foreign Policy Despite the fact that foreign policy is the focal point of FPA, there is no consensual definition of what a foreign policy actually is. Why? ○ because the concept of foreign policy adopted by analysts is in constant mutation, as a function of the changes in practices and theories. ○ it would be illusory to freeze foreign policy within a specific empirical reality that is timeless and universal. ○ what is considered to be a foreign policy today may not have been so yesterday and may not be tomorrow. as a result, every definition remains more or less dependent on its context. Morin and Paquin adopted a broad definition of foreign policy: ○ a set of actions or rules governing the actions of an independent political authority deployed in the international environment. Rationale: 1. the definition emphasizes that foreign policy is the “actions of an independent political authority” because it is reserved to sovereign states. National governments are the legal custodians of their state’s sovereignty and represent the international personality of their states. Therefore, sub-national entities cannot conduct foreign policy as they are not sovereign or independent entities; they may engage in international relations according to their constitutional jurisdictions but cannot deploy a foreign policy on the international stage. ○ However, exceptions exist in certain decentralized federal systems, where regions have the right to sign international legal agreements within their jurisdictions. 2. the definition also refers to “actions or rules governing the actions” because the notion of policy is polysemic (capable of having several possible meanings). Some scholars consider that a foreign policy comprises actions, reactions or inaction, which may be ad hoc or repeated. ○ ad hoc – something is done as needed, without being part of a regular or established pattern. ○ Ex. France’s decision to withdraw from the negotiations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1998, or the repeated practice of providing emergency assistance to a neighboring country in the event of a major natural disaster. Other scholars view foreign policy not as the action itself but as the underlying vision—in other words, the specific conception that a state has regarding its place in the world, its national interests, and the key principles that allow it to defend them. ○ According to this view, the policy to contain a political ideology during a period of tension or the policy asserting sovereignty over a territory would be examples of foreign policy. ○ Ex. American policy to contain communism during the Cold War; Beijing’s “one China” policy concerning Taiwan. A third option positions foreign policy between these two perspectives. ○ This middle approach, supported by James Rosenau, suggests that doctrines are often too specific to individual countries, making it difficult to study their variations, while decisions are too inconsistent and unique to allow for broad generalizations. Some research within the Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) framework focuses on specific, well-defined decisions, while other research examines practices that occur so frequently they become routine. Some scholars emphasize the material actions of states, while others focus on what states declare verbally. ○ Given this diversity, there is no need to restrict the scope of FPA to a narrow definition of policy. III. When a policy becomes foreign 3. defines foreign policy as being “deployed in the international environment.” There’s a substantial amount of overlap between foreign policy and public policy as fields of research. Scholars differentiate foreign policy because it is located at the junction between international politics and domestic public policy (Rosenau 1971). Two traditions of FPA: ○ For Lentner, “there are foreign policy writers who concentrate on exactly the type of analysis that most public policy analysts do.” They focus on practical decision-making processes, looking at how and why specific policies are made. Authors like Richard Neustadt (1960), Graham Allison (1969) and Alexander George (1980) are good examples. ○ On the other hand, several FPA experts belong to the discipline of international relations and are directly influenced by research paradigms such as realism or liberalism, which try to explain states’ behavior in the international system. These scholars focus on explaining why states act the way they do in the global system, considering factors like power, security, and cooperation. What differentiates these two traditions of FPA from the study of domestic public policy is that they must somehow take the international system into account as they deal with problems arising outside state borders. ○ This is the reason why this book defines foreign policy as being “deployed in the international environment”. III. High and Low politics High politics refers to issues crucial for the survival of the state, like national and international security. It involves decisions related to defense, military, and diplomatic relations. On the other hand, low politics focuses on less critical, non-security matters like economic and social policies, including healthcare, education, and welfare programs. During the Cold War, some people linked the difference between external (foreign) and internal (domestic) policies to the idea of “high politics” (important issues like security) and “low politics” (everyday matters like health or education). ○ From this viewpoint, foreign policy was seen as a tool to protect a state's most critical interests, focusing on security and gaining power.  The threat of nuclear war intensified the belief that all public policy goals—like healthcare, transportation, and education—should be secondary to the security priorities of foreign policy. IV. Impact of Foreign Policy John F. Kennedy argued that foreign policy had a major impact on daily life, influencing everything from spending and taxes to economic and social services. ○ He believed that these areas depended on the state of war or peace. However, in practice, economic and social policies have not always been directly tied to security concerns in foreign policy. Similarly, national security has not been viewed solely through foreign policy. ○ The separation between high politics (security issues) and low politics (economic and social issues), as well as the distinction between domestic and foreign policy, has often been presented in textbooks. However, this distinction doesn’t fully align with the real complexities of power and governance. V. Connection between domestic and foreign policy The connection between domestic and foreign policy is evident in the overlapping roles of the military and police forces. ○ Traditionally, the military is seen as handling external threats, while police manage internal issues. However, the military has often been involved in maintaining domestic order, especially in colonies or peacekeeping missions. Similarly, police forces have participated in international activities for many years, such as combating organized crime and terrorism. The idea that high politics (security) is tied to foreign policy and low politics (economy and social issues) is linked to domestic policy was widely accepted until the 1973 oil crisis. ○ The global impact of the conflict in the Middle East showed that security and economic issues are interconnected, making the clear separation between internal and external policies outdated. After the Cold War, this distinction was no longer used in Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). ○ In today's world, issues like financial crises, pandemics, migration, biotechnology, and climate change are considered just as important as traditional security threats like nuclear conflict. VI. Critique of foreign policy In order to affirm that the single objective of foreign policy is still to guarantee state security, the notion has to be extended to cover economic, health, energy, human,  nutritional, societal and environmental securities, until all areas of state action are included and the notion loses all meaning (Buzan et al. 1998). It is undoubtedly simpler to acknowledge that foreign policy is multisectoral. ○ Indeed, it focuses equally on promoting cultural diversity, respecting human rights, prohibiting chemical weapons, restricting agricultural subsidies, conserving fish stocks in the oceans and so forth. The authors likely made this statement to highlight a critique of overly expansive definitions of foreign policy. ○ They are pointing out that if foreign policy is defined to include every area of state action, it becomes so vague that it is no longer useful for analysis or understanding. By emphasizing this point, they advocate for a more focused definition of foreign policy that retains its specificity and relevance, allowing for clearer discussions and analyses of state actions. ○ Essentially, they are urging scholars and policymakers to recognize the distinct elements of foreign policy rather than diluting the concept by trying to include everything under its umbrella. VII. What distinguishes foreign policy from public policy? The field of foreign policy, unlike other public policy areas, cannot be limited to a single question, objective, target, or function. ○ Instead, it can be defined by a geographic criterion: any action (or inaction) taken by a sovereign political authority in a context outside the state’s borders is considered part of foreign policy. This applies regardless of whether the action is carried out by the ministry of foreign affairs or any other public authority. The transition from internal to external is what makes foreign policy distinct. ○ When a pol