COURSE SYLLABUS
Foreign Policy Analysis
Instructor:
Erin Jenne, PhD
Associate Professor, IRES
4 Credits (8 ECTS Credits)
Office hours: Weds. 11-3, (VF, 206)
Teaching Assistant:
TBA, PhD Candidate
Doctoral School of Pol. Science
Public Policy & International Relations
Office hours: by appointment
This course aims to familiarize students with the process by which foreign policy is made. In
exploring this question, the course takes students on a tour through the corpus of thought on
foreign policy. Broadly speaking, the course follows a traditional "levels of analysis"
structure, beginning with the systemic or structural level, where we examine constraints on
foreign-policy making such as balance of power considerations and alliance structures. We
also consider systemic sources of foreign policy, including transnational social networks,
multi-national corporations, diasporas, epistemic communities, global norms, and the
democratic peace. We then move to the state level to investigate the influence of domestic
factors such as regime type, government veto players, bureaucratic and organizational politics,
sub-state interest groups, public opinion and media, as well as cultural factors. Finally, we
move to individual-level factors that influence foreign policy decision-making, including
cognitive maps, leadership traits, psychological factors, perceptions, and beliefs. Rather than
offering a definitive answer to the question of how foreign policy is made, students will be
encouraged to consider a number of possible sources and interactions among these sources.
Students will also be asked to evaluate alternative accounts for a given foreign policy in order
to construct the most plausible explanation for it. The course focuses largely on American
foreign policy, as this literature is largely U.S.-based. However, we will also examine foreign
policy-making in the EU, China, Japan, Russia, as well as small or weak states. In the final
weeks of the class, students will have a chance to apply the principles of foreign policy
analysis in an international system negotiations simulation (details TBA).
The goals of the course are threefold. First, it aims to familiarize students with the
principal alternative approaches to foreign policy as a field related to, but distinct from,
international relations. Second, it enables students to participate in and contribute to
contemporary debates on foreign policy-making using theoretically-informed empirical
analysis. Finally, it uses in-class simulations to assist students in applying concepts and
theories of foreign policy analysis to real world policy settings.
1
Course Aims
The course’s main aim is to provide students with a sound understanding of:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The competing theories of foreign policy
The principal differences between foreign policy and international politics
How to analyze foreign policy using different levels of analysis
The uses and limits of comparative foreign policy analysis
How to ascertain the relative influence of psychological factors versus political
institutions versus systematic constraints on foreign policy
6) How international negotiations are conducted in forming foreign policy.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this course, students will be able to:






Distinguish the causal logics of competing theories of foreign policy
Explain foreign policy formation in concrete cases
Test the relative explanatory value of competing theories using empirical analysis
Undertake foreign policy analysis using process-tracing and other techniques
Identify the policy implications of competing theories of foreign policy
Present policy proposals and negotiate over outcomes
Course Requirements
(1) Mid-term Exam (20%). Students will be given an in-class essay examination that tests
their understanding of competing theories of foreign policy; they will be expected to apply
these frameworks to concrete or hypothetical cases of foreign policy formation in the real
world.
(2) Final Exam (40%). As an alternative to an in-class final exam--which covers all the
material in the course with a heavy emphasis on the second half--students may write a
research paper on some aspect of foreign policy. This will only be an option if the paper is
related to the student’s MA thesis. If the student chooses to write a final paper, they must
consult with me first.
(3) Class Participation (10%). Students are expected to attend all the seminars and participate
in class discussions; since the course is highly interactive, it is essential that students
attend the seminars having read the materials for that day’s class.
(4) Simulation (30%): (Details TBA)
2
COURSE SCHEDULE
Week 1. Introduction
January 13: What is Foreign Policy and How Do We Analyze It?
Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne. 2012. “Introduction,” in Steve Smith,
Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases
(Oxford University Press), pp. 1-6.
Valerie M. Hudson. 2012. “The History and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis,” in
Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories,
Actors, Cases (Oxford University Press), pp. 13-34.
Brian White. 1999. “The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis,” European
Journal of International Relations, Vol. 5: 37-66.
Further Reading
Valerie M. Hudson, “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground
of International Relations," Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2005), pp.
1-30.
Walter Carlsnaes. 2002. “Foreign Policy Analysis,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas
Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations (London:
Sage), pp. 331-49.
Arnold Wolfers, “The Goals of Foreign Policy,” in Discord and Collaboration.
Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 67-80.
James N. Rosenau. 1971. Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press,
chapter 6.
Valerie M. Hudson and Christopher S. Vore. 1995. Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday,
Today, and Tomorrow, Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 209238.
Zeev Maoz. 1990. National Choices and International Processes. New York:
Cambridge University Press, chapter 5.
Ole R. Holsti. 1989. “Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy,
Diplomatic History, Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 15-43.
David Patrick Houghton. 2007. “Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy
DecisionMaking: Toward a Constructivist Approach,” Foreign Policy Analysis, 3, 1,
pp. 24-45.
January 15: Analytical Frameworks
Walter Carlnaes. 2012. “Actors, Structures, and Foreign Policy Analysis,” in Steve
Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors,
Cases (Oxford University Press), pp. 113-129.
3
J. David Singer. 1961. “The Levels-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,”
World Politics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 77-92.
Further Reading
Kenneth N. Waltz. 1959. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University
Press, chap. 1.
James N. Rosenau. 1968. “Comparative Foreign Policy: Fad, Fantasy, or Field?”
International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 296-329.
Robert Jervis. 1979. Perceptions and Misperceptions in International Politics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barry Buzan. 1994. The Levels of Analysis Problem in IR Reconsidered,” in Ken
Booth and Steve Smith (ed.) International Relations Theory Today. London: Polity
Press.
Harvey Starr. 1988. “Rosenau, Pre-theories, and the Evolution of the Comparative
Study of Foreign Policy,” International Interactions, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Week 2. Systemic Theories of Foreign Policy
January 20: Realist and Neo-realist Theories of Foreign Policy
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell, and Norrin M. Ripsman. 2009. "Introduction:
Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy." In Steven E. Lobell,
Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro (eds.) Neoclassical Realism, the
State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.
1-41.
Kenneth N. Waltz. 2000. “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol.
25, No. 1, pp. 5-41.
Ali E. Hillal Dessouki and Baghat Korany. 2010. “Globalization and Arab Foreign
Policies: Constraints or Marginalization,” in The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The
Challenge of Globalization, edited by B. Korany and A. Dessouki, American
University in Cairo Press, chap 3 (pp. 45-65),
http://books.google.hu/books?id=64PWMY5QksMC&lpg=PA63&ots=rc03zEYElt&d
q=the%20global%20system%20and%20arab%20foreign%20policies%20constraints&
pg=PA61#v=onepage&q=the%20global%20system%20and%20arab%20foreign%20p
olicies%20constraints&f=false.
Further Reading
William Wohlforth. 2012. “Realism and Foreign Policy,” in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield,
and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford University Press), pp.
35-53.
Gideon Rose. 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics,
Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144-72.
4
Colin Elman. 1996. “Cause, Effect and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz,”
Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 58-61.
Colin Elman. 1996. “Horses for Courses: Why not Neorealist Theories of
Foreign Policy?” Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 7-53.
Kenneth N. Waltz. 1996. “International Politics is Not Foreign Policy,”
Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 54-57.
January 22: Liberal and Neo-Liberal Theories of Foreign Policy
John Duffield. 1992. “International Regimes and Alliance Behavior: Explaining
NATO Force Levels,” International Organization, Vol. 46, pp. 819-855.
Andrew Moravcik. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of
International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 513-553.
Further Readings
Derick Becker. 2010. “The New Legitimacy and International Legitimation:
Civilization and South African Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Analysis (April).
Michael Doyle. 2012. “Liberalism and Foreign Policy,” Michael Doyle. 1983 “Kant,
Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp. 54-77.
Michael Doyle. 1983 “Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy and
Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 205-235.
James N. Rosenau. 1976. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.
Wolfgang Wagner. 2003. “Why the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy will
Remain Intergovernmental: A Rationalist Institutional Choice Analysis of European
Crisis Management Policy,” Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.
576-595.
Week 3. Other System-level Theories of Foreign Policy
January 27: International Norms and Transnational Advocacy Groups
Liat Radcliffe Ross. July 2013. “Muslim Interest Groups and Foreign Policy in the
United States, Great Britain and Canada: Identity, Interests, and Action,” Foreign
Policy Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 287-306.
Nina Tannenwald. 1999. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative
Basis of Nuclear Non-Use,” International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 433-468.
Further Readings
Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, 2006. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy,” The London Review of Books, Middle East Policy, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 29-87
(working paper available in dropbox).
5
Allison Brysk. 2000. From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and
International Relations in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Richard Price. 1998. “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets
Land Mines,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 613-644.
Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. 2001. “Taking Stock: The Constructivist
Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics,” Annual
Review Political Science, Vol. 4, pp. 391-416.
Tony Smith. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of
American Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yossi Shain. 1994-1995. “Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Political Science
Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 5, pp. 811-841.
Ethan A. Nadelman. 1990. “Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in
International Society,” International Organization, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 479-526.
January 29: Neo-Marxist and Systems Theories
William I. Robinson. 1996. “Globalization, the World System, and ‘Democracy
Promotion’ in U. S. Foreign Policy,” Theory and Society, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 615-665.
Further Readings:
Immanuel Wallerstein. 1974. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist
System,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, pp. 387-415.
Claire Cutler. March 1999. “Locating ‘Authority’ in the Global Political Economy,”
International Studies Quarterly 43(1), pp. 59-81.
STATE LEVEL THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY
Week 4. Government Institutions and Foreign Policy
February 3: Organizational Theory and Bureaucratic Politics
Patrick J. Haney. 2005. “Foreign-Policy Advising: Models and Mysteries from the Bush
Administration,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 289-302.
Stuart Kaufman. 1994. “Organizational Politics and Change in Soviet Military Policy,”
World Politics, Vol. 46, pp. 355-382.
Further Readings:
Abdulkader H. Sinno, Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2008.
Johan P. Olsen. 2001. "Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics."
American Political Science Review, 95, 1, pp. 191-98.
6
Graham Allison. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Boston: Little, Brown & Co., chaps. 1, 5.
John Steinbruner. 1976. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, Chap. 3.
Morton H. Halperin, Priscilla Clapp, with Arnold Kanter. 2006. Bureaucratic Politics
and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.
Paul A. Kowert. 2002. Groupthink or Deadlock? When do Presidents Learn from their
Advisors? Albany: State University of New York Press.
Irving Janis. "Introduction: Why So Many Miscalculations?" and "A Perfect Failure: The Bay
of Pigs," Groupthink, Dallas: Houghton Mifflin, 1982, pp. 2-47.
Zeev Maoz. 1990. “Framing the National Interest: The Manipulation of Foreign Policy
Decisions in Group Settings,” World Politics, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 77-110.
Alexander L. George. 1972. “The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy,”
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 751-785
February 5: Political Culture and Ideas
Jeffrey Checkel. 1993. “Ideas, Institutions, and the Gorbachev Foreign Policy
Revolution,” World Politics, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 271-300.
John Duffield. 1999. “Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds
Neorealism,” International Organization, Vol. 53, pp. 765-803.
Further Reading
Elizabeth Kier, “Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars,”
International Security, Vol. 19, pp. 65-93.
Alastair Iain Johnston. 1995. Cultural Realism: Strategic culture and Grand Strategy
in Chinese History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
K. J. Holsti. 1970. “National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy,”
International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 233-309.
Lucian W. Pye. 1991. “Political Culture Revisited,” Political Psychology, Vol. 12, No.
3, pp. 487-508.
Alastair Iain Johnston. 1995. “Thinking about Strategic Culture,” International
Security, Vol. 19, pp.32-64.
Week 5. Government Institutions and Societal Actors
February 10: Coalition Governance, Sectors, and Special Interests
Joe D. Hagan, Philip P. Everts, Haruhiro Fukui, and John D. Stempel. 2003. “Foreign
Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy,” International Studies
Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 169-216.
Stephen M. Saideman and David P. Auerswald. 2012. “Comparing Caveats:
7
Understanding the Sources of National Restrictions upon NATO’s Mission in
Afghanistan,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp. 67-84.
Further Readings
Jeffrey Frieden. 1988. “Sectoral Conflict and Foreign Economic Policy, 1914-1940,”
International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 59-90.
Judith Goldstein. 1988. “The State and American Foreign Economic Policy,”
International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 179-217.
Jack Snyder. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, chaps. 1,2,8.
Jeffrey A. Frieden. 1991. “Invested Interests,” International Organization, Vol. 45, pp.
425-52.
February 12: Media and Public Opinion
Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay and Evan Lewis. Winter 2003/2004. “Misperceptions, the
Media, and the Iraq War,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, No. 4, pp. 569-598.
Nathalie Frensley and Nelson Michaud. 2006. “Public Diplomacy and Motivated
Reasoning: Framing Effects on Canadian Media Coverage of U.S. Foreign Policy
Statements,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 201-222.
Further Readings
Benjamin E. Goldsmith and Yusaku Horiuchi. 2012. “In Search of Soft Power: Does
Foreign Public Opinion about the U.S. Affect U.S. Foreign Policy?” World Politics,
64, 3, pp. 555-585.
Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Neil J. Mitchell, and Kerry G. Herron. 2004. “Foreign and
Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics,” Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol. 48, pp. 287-309.
Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell. Nov./Dec. 2004. “Web of Influence,” Foreign
Policy, No. 145, pp. 32-40
Chaim Kaufman. 2004. “Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas:
The Selling of the Iraq War,” International Security, Vol. 29, No., pp. 5-48.
Ole R. Holsti. 1992. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the AlmondLipmann Consensus,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 439-66.
Matthew Baum. 2002. “Sex, Lies and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to
the Inattentive Public,” American Political Science Review 96, pp. 91-109.
John E. Mueller. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley.
Douglas C. Foyle. 1997. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Elite Beliefs as a
Mediating Variable,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 141-169.
8
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY
DOUBLE CLASS (To Be Rescheduled)
Class 1/2: Personality, Leadership, and Psychoanalytic Approaches
Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack. Spring 2001. “Let Us Now Praise Great
Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 107146
Stephen Benedict Dyson. 2007. “Alliances, Domestic Politics, and Leader Psychology:
Why Did Britain Stay Out of Vietnam and
Go into Iraq?” Political Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 647-666.
Further Readings
Juliet Kaarbo. 1997. "Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy DecisionMaking: A Framework for Research," Political Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 553-581.
Robert E. Gilbert. 2008. “Ronald Reagan's Presidency: The Impact of an Alcoholic
Parent." Political Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 737-765.
Juliet Kaarbo and Margaret G. Hermann. 1998. “Leadership Styles of Prime Ministers:
How Individual Differences Affect the Foreign Policymaking Process,” Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 243-263.
Stephen Dyson. 2006. “Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decision,”
Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 289-306.
Fred I. Greenstein. 2009. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to
Barack Obama, 3rd edition. Princeton University Press.
James M. Goldgeier. 1994. Leadership Style and Soviet Foreign Policy: Stalin,
Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Margaret G. Hermann. 1980. “Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal
Characteristics of Political Leaders,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1,
pp. 7-46.
Class 2/2: Cognition and Framing
Kenneth Boulding, “National Images and International Systems,” Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol. 3, pp. 120-31.
Ariel Levi and Philip E. Tetlock. 1980. “A Cognitive Analysis of Japan’s 1941
Decision for War,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 195-211.
Further Readings
Thomas S. Mowle. 2003. “Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and
External Conflict,” Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 561-592.
9
Alexander L. George. 1969. “The Operational Code: A Neglected Approach to the
Study of Political Leaders and Decision Making,” International Studies Quarterly,
Vol. 13, pp. 190-222.
Yaacov Vertzberger. 1990. The World in their Minds: Information Processing,
Cognition, and Perception. Stanford University Press.
Michael J. Shapiro and G. Matthew Bonham. 1973. “Cognitive Process and Foreign
Policy Decision-making,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 147-174
Alexander George. 1980. Presidential Decisionmaking. Boulder: Westview Press,
chap. 2-3.
Rose McDermott. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. University of
Michigan Press, chaps. 4-5.
Jack S. Levy. 1994. “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield,”
International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 279-312.
Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk (2008) “Older but Wiser? Effects of Age on
Political Cognition," The Journal of Politics, Vol. 70, pp. 168-185.
Week 7. Midterm and Simulation Preparation
February 17: MIDTERM EXAM
Feburary 19: Negotiating Strategies (lecture by Natalia A. Peral)
Readings TBA
Week 8. Negotiations Simulation
February 24: Finalize proposal preparations, begin negotiations, and introduce proposals.
Feburary 26: Continue negotiations.
Week 9. Simulation (cont.)
March 3: Conclude negotiations, vote on proposals, and debrief.
March 5: EU Foreign Policy (Subject to revision)
Björn Hettne and Fredrik Söderbaum. 2005. “Civilian Power or Soft Imperialism? EU
as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism,” European Foreign Affairs Review,
10, 4, pp. 535-552.
Spyros Economides and James Ker-Lindsay. 2010. Forging EU foreign policy unity
from diversity: the ‘unique case’ of the Kosovo Status Talks'. European Foreign Affairs
Review, 15, 4, pp. 495-510.
10
Further Readings
Ulrich Krotz and Richard Mayer. 2011. “ International Relations and The Rise of
European Foreign and Security Policy,” World Politics, 63, 3, pp. 548-579.
Ian Manners and Richard Whitmann (eds) 2000. The Foreign Policies of European Union
Member States. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Per Stig Moller. 2003. “European Foreign Policy in the Making,” Brown Journal of World
Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 63-72.
Michael E. Smith. 2004. Europe’s Foreign and Security Policy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Simon J. Nuttal. 2000. European Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brian White. 1999. “The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis,” European
Journal of International Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37-66.
Henrik Larsen. 2009. “A Distinct FPA for Europe? Towards a Comprehensive
Framework for Analysing the Foreign Policy of EU Member States,” European
Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 537-66.
Philip H. Gordon. 1997-1998. “Europe's Uncommon Foreign Policy,” International
Security, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 74-100.
Week 10. Non-Traditional Foreign Policy Analysis
March 10: Historical Analogies and Metaphors in Foreign Policy Analysis
Roland Paris. 2002. “Kosovo and the Metaphor War,” Political Science Quarterly,
Vol. 117, No. 3, pp. 423-450.
Jutta Weldes and Diane Saco, “Making State Action Possible: The United States and
the Discursive Construction of ‘The Cuban Problem,’” Millennium, Vol. 25, No. 2
(1996), pp. 361-395.
Further Readings
George Lakoff, “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the
Gulf,” Peace Research, Vol. 32, pp. 25-32.
Yaacov Vertzberger. 1986. “Foreign Policy Decision-Makers as Practical Intuitive
Historians: Applied History and its Shortcomings,” International Studies Quarterly,
Vol. 30, pp. 223-247.
Yuen Foong Khong. 1992. Analogies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
David Campbell. 1998. Writing Security: The United States Foreign Policy and the
Politics of Identity. University of Minnesota Press.
Robert D. Dean. 2001. Imperial Brotherhood: Gender and the Making of Cold War
Foreign Policy. University of Massachusetts Press.
Carol Cohn. 1987. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,”
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 687-718.
11
March 12: Non-State Actors and Foreign Policy
Boekle, Henning; Rittberger, Volker, and Wagner, Wolfgan 2001. Chapter 5.
Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory, in Rittberger, Volker (Ed) German Foreign
Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies. Manchester University Press.
Hehir, Bryan J.1990.“Papal Foreign Policy”, Foreign Policy, Vol. 78, pp. 26-48.
Further Readings
Parag Khanna. 2004. “The Metrosexual Superpower,” Foreign Policy, Vol.
143, pp. 66-68.
Raymond Cohen. 1991. Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in
International Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 348; 153-161.
Abigail E. Ruane. 2006. “’Real Men’ and Diplomats: Intercultural Diplomatic
Negotiation and Masculinities in China and the United States,” International Studies
Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 342-359.
Pentin, Edward .2013.”The Pope as Diplomat: How the Vatican Does Foreign Policy,”
Foreign Affairs, 27th February 2013.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136240/edward-pentin/the-pope-as-diplomat
Week 11. Foreign Policy of Weak States and Non-Democracies
March 17: The Foreign Policy of Weak and Developing States
Mohammed Ayoob. 1991. “The Security Problematic of the Third World,” World
Politics, Vol. 43, pp. 257-283.
Diana Panke. 2012 “Dwarfs in International Negotiations: How Small States Make
Their Voices Heard,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.
313-328.
Giacalon, Rita.2012 “Latin American Foreign Policy Analysis: External Influences and
Internal Circumstances”, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol.8, pp. 335-353
.
Further Readings
Peter Calvert. 1986. The Foreign Policy of New States. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf
Books.
Bahgat Korany. 1986. How Foreign Policy Decisions are made in the Third World.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Miriam Fendius Elman. 1995. “The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging
NeoRealism in its Own Backyard,” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp. 171-217.
12
March 19: Non-democracies and Foreign Policy
Brian Lai and Dan Slater. 2006. “Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of
Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950-1992,” American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 113-126.
Kathleen J. Hancock. 2006. “The Semi-Sovereign State: Belarus and the Russian NeoEmpire,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 117-136.
Further Readings
Jessica L. Weeks. 2010. “Leaders, Accountability, and Foreign Policy in NonDemocracies,” Dissertation, Stanford University.
Week 12. Wrap-up and Final Exam
March 24: Foreign Policy (and Analysis) in the Twenty-first Century
Andrew Hurrell. 2006. “Hegemony, Liberalism, and Global Order: What Space for
Would-Be Global Powers?” International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Baohui Zhang. 2010. “Chinese Foreign Policy in Transition: Trends and Implications,”
Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 39-68.
Juliet Kaarbo. 2003. “Foreign Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century: Back to
Comparison, Forward to Identity and Ideas,” in "Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20: A
Symposium" edited by Jean A. Garrison, International Studies Review, Volume 5.
Further Readings
Shiping Gouli Liou. 2003. “Leadership Transition and Chinese Foreign Policy,”
Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 1-2, pp. 101-117.
Evan S. Medeiros and M. Taylor Fravel. 2003. “China's New Diplomacy,” Foreign
Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 6, pp. 22-35.
March 26: FINAL EXAM
13
Further Reading
Emotions and Illness
Rose McDermott. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, chap. 6.
Rose McDermott. 2007. Presidential Leadership, Illness and Decision Making. New York:
Cambridge University Press, chap. 4.
Ole R. Holsti and Alexander George. 1975. “The Effects of Stress on the Performance of
Foreign Policy-Makers,” In C. P. Cotter, Political Science Annual. Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill, pp. 255-319.
Neta C. Crawford. 2000. “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional
Relationships,” International Security, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 116-56.
Prospect Theory and Foreign Policy
Rose McDermott. 2001. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American
Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, chap. 2.
Kurt Weyland. 1996. “Risk Taking in Latin American Economic Restructuring: Lessons from
Prospect Theory,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 185-207.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1986. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decision,”
Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4/2, pp. S251-78.
Barbara Farnham. 1994. Avoiding Losses/Taking Risks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Jack S. Levy. 1997. “Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations,”
International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Jonathan Mercer. 2005. “Prospect Theory and Political Science,” Annual Review of Political
Science, Vol. 8, pp. 1-21.
14