Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay: Foreign Policy
The importance of rational decision making
Essay: Foreign Policy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay: Foreign Policy
INTRODUCTION
Foreign policy is the relation between the states. “Foreign policy is an activity of the state with which it fulfils its aims and interests within the international arena” (Patrič, 2013, p. 1). Foreign policy has many definitions by the other scholar. According to Laura Neack, which is cited from Charles Herman,(n.d), he mentioned foreign policy as,
“The discrete purposeful action that results from the political level decision of an individual or group of individuals… [it is] the abservable artifact of a political level decision. It is not the decision, but a product of the decision” (Neack, 2003, p. 25)
There are a lot of approaches that can be applied in making decision for foreign policy. The example of the approach is rational actor, bureaucratic, strategic planning, organizational behavior and hypothetical flow. This paper will preview about the approaches like rational actor, organizational behavior and bureaucratic model. It is from the Allison’s Three Model which is has been introduced by Graham T. Allison.
DISCUSSION
Rational actor is a part of in doing a rationalist approach to foreign policy decision making. At every basic level, we assume that people are rational in doing every aspect in social norms. Thus, rationality is a complex concept with different meaning and different people or actors. According to Slantchev, “Rationality does not carry any connotations of normative behavior.” (Slantchev, April 19, 2005) From here we can see that not at all the social norms based on the rationality by actors. According to Slantchev,
“Hence, one may well argue that Hitler was rational even though his actions were clearly morally reprehensible. Similarly, it is quite possible to argue that suicide terrorists are r...
... middle of paper ...
...depend on the rationality of the leader. The state will get benefit if the decision is give benefit to the state. The organizational is different from the rational actor model. The organization in the government is the one that responsible in making decision for foreign policy. The organization is consists from a lot of organization in the government. This model depends on the Standard Operating Procedure when making certain decision for foreign policy. The bureaucratic model is also different from the rational actor model, where the leader is not the person that responsible making decision in foreign policy. The people in government are making decision for their own interest that to maintain their survival in the state (Brummer, 2009). In other word, we can say that every approach has their own function and their own procedure in making decision in foreign policy.
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
In world politics there are different theories that help actors make decisions and lead states. A theory is “a hypothesis postulating the relationship between variables of conditions advanced to describe, explain, or predict phenomena’s and make prescriptions about how to pursue particular goals and follow ethical principles.” The three different types of theories I will be discussing are realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Each theory has its own history and of course each has its problems. Leaders use these theories to make decisions and also how to reach certain goals.
In foreign policy, decision making is guided by different a leader that is from presidents, cabinets, parliaments and groups such as communist party of Soviet Union and the standing committee of the communist party of china and Central Intelligence Agency of USA. One cannot run away from the fact that a leader’s personality can affect foreign policy. Maoz and Shayer believe that one cannot underrate or ignore the role of personality in decision making as it plays a huge role. By examining ones foreign policy, we can understand foreign policy better (Jensen, 1982). If a leader is aggressive then there are certain traits he will exhibit such as paranoia, manipulation, thirst for power high intensity of nationalism, (Hermann, 1980). Hitler was one leader who led to world war when he challenged the treaty of Versailles by adopting an aggressive foreign policy. The opposite is true for a mild leader for example George Washington who told Americans to avoid entrapping alliances.
What is Foreign Policy? Foreign Policy is a nations’ attitude, actions (ie economic sanctions, peacekeeping, military activity) as well as our dealings with other countries (ie trade, immigration, aid, defence) and anything that is directed towards preserving and furthering certain national interests. Foreign Policy seeks to maintain national security, promote economic and trade interests, expand regional and global links, and promote the nation as a good global citizen.
International Studies Union County College (2010, August 10). Decision Making Models. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from http://faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/decision_making_models.htm
The chosen level of analysis and international relation theory to explain this event are the individual-level of analysis and realism. This level of analysis focuses on the individuals that make decisions, the impact of human nature, the behavior of individuals acting in an organization, and how personality and individual experiences impact foreign policy...
Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Endicott, John E.; Johnson, Loch K.; Papp, Daniel S. (2005) American foreign policy: history, politics and policy. N.Y.: Pearson.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
...ee BOP in policy, status, symbol or system. The BOP is intellectually closely related to the idea of raison d’état (Staatsräson), an idea that belongs to the intellectual heritage of a Machiavelli, Hobbes or Friedrich Meinecke. Statesmen assumed the existence of objective power relationships in the international system out of which they could derive their ideal strategy to promote the individual national interest of their own state. This means they had to strategically anticipate the decisions of their enemies concerning armaments, alliance policies, and preventive military actions and so on. Statesmen thought in a systemic way. Their decisions, classical BOP theory assumes, are influenced by external developments more than by internal processes. (Representatives of Neoclassical Realism (NCR) and liberal approaches to IR disagree in this respect to various degrees).
It aims towards economic principles and to apply these principles in decision making while administration is fixated on the structural principles and policy implementation. Public administration centres on the procedures within an institute and they see everyone as being detached and professional in the workplace. Public administrative theories also emphasise that these organizations have a bureaucratic structure. The separation between public administration and public choice arise in a hypothetical field. Their concepts vary greatly in many features of procedures.