Comparative foreign policy analysis

Comparative foreign policy analysis (CFP) is a vibrant and dynamic subfield of international relations. It examines foreign policy decision-making processes related to momentous events as well as patterns in day-to-day foreign interactions of nearly 200 different states (along with thousands of international and nongovernmental organizations). Scholars explore the causes of these behaviors as well as their implications by constructing, testing, and refining theories of foreign policy decision-making in comparative perspective. In turn, CFP also offers valuable lessons to government leaders. This essay surveys the evolution of CFP as a subfield over time, with special attention to its contributions to academic understanding and policy-making. It begins with a review of the characteristics and contributions of CFP, followed by acknowledgment of early works that helped establish this area of study. The next section of the essay reviews major thematic focuses of CFP, including theories of international pressures and factors that may drive state foreign policy as well as strong foundations in studies of domestic politics. Key internal actors and conditions that can influence state foreign policies include individual leaders, institutions and legislatures, bureaucratic organizations and government agencies, and public opinion and nongovernmental organizations. Following this survey of actors and contemporary theories of their role in foreign policy-decision making, the essay develops two illustrations of new directions in comparative foreign policy studies focused on political party factions and role theory in comparative perspective.Postprin

International Interventions and Normative Prudence as a ‘Forgotten’ Virtue of Statecraft

This article presents a case for making normative prudence key to the debates concerning international interventions and statebuilding. Despite a rich conceptual history, contemporary IR literature seems to have forgotten the concept. We address this gap by defining the virtue through the yardsticks of deliberation, caution, foresight, and knowing the limits of one's abilities. Applying these yardsticks to the cases of the Kosovo (1999) and Iraq wars (2003), we argue that once developed in the context of international interventions, the concept of normative prudence provides an invaluable platform for assessing interventions and, if employed robustly, it can help those undertaking the interventions to prepare for the ‘day after.

Strategic Culture: From Clausewitz to Constructivism; Strategic Insights, v. 6, issue 10 (November 2005)

This article appeared in Strategic Insights, v.6, issue 10 (October 2005)Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Coorespondence, The Short Shadow of U.S. Primacy?

Keir Lieber and Daryl Press’s recent article presents a compelling case for the rise of U.S. nuclear primacy in the twenty-ªrst century. The authors, however, fail to address what they maintain is a central question in international relations scholarship: “Does nuclear primacy grant the superior side real coercive leverage in political disputes?”1 Their passing discussion of the theme does little justice to the merit of the question, and as a result the article seems incomplete. In fact, the United States already enjoys primacy in the vast majority of its relations with other countries, but recent events suggest that this preponderance of power has not led to coercive leverage

Military Veterans of the War on Terror

The number of US military veterans of the War on Terror (WoT) who were elected to Congress increased to its highest level ever in 2021. This trend reflects broader changes in the makeup of Congress, which now includes more gender, racial, ethnic, and religious diversity than ever before. This article bridges the literatures on socialization and civil-military relations with foreign-policy analyses of advocacy and entrepreneurship to study WoT veterans in Congress. This cohort of veterans represents a new generation with distinctive experiences that generally include more exposure to combat, more redeployments, and more post-traumatic stress diagnoses than previous generations of soldiers. Specifically, this study examines links between WoT veterans’ experiences and their adoption of creative strategies to achieve defense and foreign-policy objectives such as maintaining US commitments to operations in Syria and Afghanistan. Looking beyond roll-call voting with a multidimensional and diversified model of veteran legislative advocacy can enrich our understanding of today’s complex foreign-policy decision-making processes.</jats:p