1

Q.1 Discuss how foreign policy analysis has evolved as an independent field of
study? How is it relevant to states?

ANSWER- 1
The treaty of Westphalia and the end of the First and Second World War, the international
system has witnessed an increasing growth in the development of nation states. He ends product
of this development is thus, the creation of an interaction between these nation states. In addition,
the establishment of United Nations and the process of decolonization that has liberated many
states into sovereign entities have further provided the impetus to interrelationships among
states. Such has resulted into the formation of ‘foreign policies.

With the aim of determining and identifying the decisions, strategies, and ends of interaction of a
state with another Furthermore, the modern world of “globalization”; the “widening, deepening
and speeding up of global interconnectedness” 1has increased these interrelationships or
interactions among states. Hence, there is unanimity among scholars on the necessity of a
“foreign policy” for each state, since no state will like to function in complete isolation. The
made scholars like Feliks Gross, to say that even a decision to have no relations with a particular
state is also a foreign policy. A state without a foreign policy, has been compared to a ship in the
deep sea without any knowledge of direction, Thus, foreign policy leads a state in fulfilling its
national interests and acquiring rightful place among comity of nations.

The term foreign policy has been defined in various ways by scholars; however, they are certain
that it is concerned with behavior of a state towards other states. Hermann for instance, defined
foreign policy as “the discrete purposeful action that results from the political level decision of
an individual or group of individuals. It is the observable artifact of a political level decision. It is
not the decision, but a product of the decision.” By this, it can be seen that Hermann defines
foreign policy as the behavior of states.

George Modelski, defines it as “the system of activities evolved by communities for changing
the behavior of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international
environment. Foreign policy must throw light on the ways states attempt to change, and succeed
in changing the behaviors of other states.” Modelski, noted only those aspects of policy that aim
at the change in the existing behaviors of states, as the primary objectives of foreign policy.
However, foreign policy is not only to change, but also continuation of the behaviors at different
times.

According to Joseph Frankel, “foreign policy consists of decisions and actions, which involves to
some appreciable extent relations between one state and others. By this, foreign policy involves
set of actions that are made within state’s borders, intended towards forces existing outside the
country’s borders. It comprises the formulation and implementation of a set of ideas that govern
 2

the behaviors of states while interacting with other states to defend and enhance their national
interests. In Huge Gibson’s insight, “foreign policy is a well-rounded comprehensive plan based
on knowledge and experience for conducting the business of government with rest of the world.
It is aim at promoting and protecting the interests of the nations. He calls for a clear
understanding of what those interests are and how far we hope to go with the means at our
disposal. Anything less than this, falls short of being a foreign policy”

Moreover, Foreign policy involves both decisions and actions i.e., policies. This decisions and
actions comprise to some considerable level relations between one state and others. Foreign
policy is basically a matter of saying what a state is going to do. Through it, every state decides
what course it will pursue in world affairs within the limits of its strength and the realities of the
external environment. Foreign policy, therefore, confers a sense of direction to a state. It
provides adequate instruments for the convenient journey towards this direction. It creates a
sense of purpose as well as a confidence to achieve that purpose. In that context, it acts as an
indispensable equipment of every state in world affairs.

Objectives of Foreign Policy

Through foreign policy a state seeks to achieve a variety of objectives. However, the objectives
sought to be attained by a state are of various categories, yet there are certain objectives which
are uniformly pursued by A ll states i.e. Political Independence and territorial integrity, economic
wellbeing and prestige of a nation. Foreign policies are generally formulated to protect a
country’s core values and interest, national security, ideological goals, as well as economic
prosperity. It is defined as a synthesis of ends and means. The end is the national interest of a
state and the means are the power and capabilities of nation state.

Principles of Foreign Policy

Every nation has some objectives of its foreign policy and thus adopted certain Principles
to realize their respective objectives such as

 Maintenance of territorial integrity with other countries and maintenance of its political
independence;
 Acceleration of social and economic development and strengthening its place in the
world.
 A nation state must increase its individual strength so that it can secure its foreign
policy ends.
 States foreign policy goals must comprise those conditions of international arena so that
disruptive effects of power exerted by other states cannot harm the state.
 3

Foreign Policy as an Independent field of Study

From Wilson's fourteen points, to claims that politics should “stop at the water's edge,” to
controversy over Wikileaks’ release of classified US government cables, the last century has
seen recurrent debate over the proper relationship between democracy and secrecy in
foreign policy. On the one hand, activists and liberal intellectuals argue that secrecy
undermines democracy and that more openness and debate will produce better policy. On
the other hand, many diplomats and realist intellectuals claim that a measure of secrecy is
vital to the safeguarding of national interests. Both sides share the assumption that, one way
or another, foreign policy has always been essentially different from other kinds of policy

The discipline of international relations offers two different takes on “foreign policy.” First,
it sees foreign policy as carrying a self-evident meaning: as an abstract expression of
relations between political entities: “Broadly interpreted, foreign policy is about the
fundamental issue of how organized groups, at least in part strangers to each other,
interrelate” (Hill 2003, xvii). Such definitions render foreign policy as an analytic concept
that transcends particular historical periods or kinds of political communities. It is always
distinct, and essentially different, from other forms of policy. Second, critics of this account
suggest that foreign policy provides one of the key ways in which the political Self is
differentiated from the Other: “Foreign policy was not a bridge between two distinct realms,
but something that both divided and joined the inside and the outside, the state and the
interstate system” (Campbell 1998, 60). In this understanding, foreign policy emerged
sometime during the seventeenth century. It was producer, and the product, of the modern
state and state system.

Foreign policy is both and herein lies at least two major challenges. When engaged in
historical analysis, we risk conflating the analytic and the practice concepts. We thus forget
key differences between the past and the present and lose critical distance. Foreign policy as
a twenty-first century practice concept is associated, for instance, with institutions such as
ministries of foreign affairs and embassies, as well as ideas such as national interests,
rational utility-maximization, and bureaucratic politics. These are all modern phenomena
and using the term foreign policy in periods during which they did not exist risks carrying
them along as conceptual baggage. This can lead the analyst to read the past in light of the
present and to interpret past actions through terms which made little or no sense to past
actors.

The second challenge lies in a naturalization of the present understanding of foreign policy.
Utilizing an analytical concept of foreign policy overlooks the question of whether, and
 4

how, its emergence as a concept was intertwined with other processes of change. Studying
the practical concept of foreign policy thus implies a denaturalization of our current
understandings of foreign policy, both practical and analytical. This denaturalization has a
number of empirical implications, which I return to in the conclusion, but one follows
already from this framework. If foreign policy as a practical concept emerged at a specific
time, for specific reasons, and has changed meaning over time, it cannot be taken for
granted that foreign policy has meant the same thing in different places. Different languages
have different ways of articulating foreign policy, each potentially with its own
developmental trajectories.

Q.2 Discuss any four determinants of foreign policy that influence the
state’s decision making. Illustrate your answer with examples.

ANSWER-2
Foreign policy of every state is influenced by mainly two determinants; one is international
or external determinates and another is domestic or internal determinates. These are
generally reflected as factors which provide assistance in shaping and molding foreign
policy. However, the link between international and domestic determinants has always been
a widely debated topic since long in the field of international relations, especially in Foreign
Policy Analysis (FPA). While some debated that domestic politics and foreign policy are
two ‘independent’ concern, others are of the view that foreign policy and domestic politics
are ‘interdependent’ and could tumble into each other.

External Determinants of Foreign Policy

Undoubtedly, the international environment plays an important role in shaping the foreign
policy of every state. Since foreign policy in general is about the interaction of a state with
another, this interaction only takes place at the international level and as such, cannot be
ignored in analyzing the foreign policy of any state. As scholars in this school acknowledge
the importance of both international and domestic factors, however, they argue that
international factors play a more important role in determining country’s foreign policy. The
main external factors that determine the foreign policy of a state are but not limited to: the
international system or power structure, international law, international organizations,
alliances, and military strength or arm race.

The international system or power structure

The modern state system has been in existence since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It
includes big, middle and small powers. As mentioned above, the interaction between these
states takes place at the international level and as such it plays a significant role in shaping
and molding the foreign policies of those interacting states. The establishment of friendly
 5

and cooperative relations between states is the aims of a sound foreign policy. Foreign
policy is essentially shaped by one’s relative power within the international system. The
world is continuously changing, new events and personalities create fresh foreign policy
problems for all concerned12. To select events at random, the impact of the Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917, the rise of Communist Power in China in 1949, the rise of De Gaulle to
power in France and Hitler in Germany, and the emergence of new states in Asia and Africa;
brought about significant changes in the power structure and that has impacted the foreign
policy of many states. A prevalent framework of world politics plays decisive role in
deciding the foreign policy of a country. As such foreign policies of states thus changes with
this in the international power structure. In the traditional multi-polar system, it was easier
for states to switch sides and gain maximum interests from both sides. Italy has used this
strategy skillfully and switched sides during the height of World War I to gain its share in
the post war colonial arrangement. During the 1980s, the international system was
characterized with a bi-polar system as witnessed during the Cold War, and now a unipolar
with the US as the only hegemonic power. These events have restructured the power system
and have a significant effect on the foreign policies of states. During the bipolar world
system, it was not easy for states to switch sides easily as the ideological fault lines were
clearly marked. The demise of the Soviet Union and the advent of the unipolar world (US
hegemony) have its own system dynamics, such as Bush’s “either with us or against us”.
This declaration has made many states from the margins of the system to come forward and
play effective roles, especially in the so-called Global War on Terror. At this point therefore,
every type of power structure at the international level has its own particular dynamics and
has an impact on the foreign policies of states.

International law
The international law is generally defined as a set of rules that regulate relations between
states. Cali defined it as “a system of rules created deliberately and explicitly by states.
Where states have expressly willed to be bound by the rules. The existence of international
law and international norms limits the freedom to maneuver of states in the system. It is
constituted by interstate agreements and treaties and thus, does not entirely favor every
interest a state may have. It limits a state in one way or another. That been said, international
law regulates the foreign policy of states, and has a binding function in foreign policy as it
offers a legal framework through which states should interact. By foreign policy in this
sense, is defined as the objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its
interaction with other states. It is believed that states actually obey and comply with
international law because its constraints the making and enacting of their foreign policy.
However, there is much debate among International Relations theorists about the
consequences of international law. Whether states really comply with or observed
international law and norms or not and to what extent they do obey international rules;
because it is clear that some international norms are obeyed while others are ignored. One
 6

side of the debate, proponents of Realism, argue that international law has little or no
independent effect on foreign policy. Henkin, for instance argued that one of the major
purposes of foreign ps to “maintain international order so that states can pursue national
interests.” Thus, in a realist view, states have the tendency to give priority to their national
interests and then sometimes violate legal norms when fundamental interests are at risk.
Leaders are claimed to pursue their national interests (broadly defined to include military
security and economic prosperity) without regard for international law. The US invasion of
Iraq in 2003, under the Bush administration provides a clear illustration of this. Hence from
this it is said, the international law lacks force because the legislative, judicial and executive
functions are fundamentally decentralized. First, each nation in world affairs is its own
lawgiver. Second, a nation is its own judge and can interpret the law to serve its own
purposes. Finally, each nation in world affairs is its own sheriff, who must enforce the law
for itself or organize a sympathetic posse. On the other hand, against this skeptical view,
liberal institutionalist argues that international law can be profoundly significant. They
assert that when states sign a treaty or agreements, it allegedly becomes costlier to take
actions the law forbids and less costly to pursue policies the law condones. That is, treaties
in the other words “tie the hands of current and future leaders by increasing the cost of
reneging.” According to the Positivist view, international law is a set of rules that regulates
and constraints state behaviors. States are constrained to respect international norms if they
do not want to face sanctions and avoid ‘naming and shaming’ by international activists
(i.e., human rights activists). The Constructivist approach of international law in foreign
policy can illustrate the fact that it regulates and gives a roadmap to state’s behaviors, enable
them to enter in relationship with each other (thereby limiting their actions); because they
are legally bind by customary law and they decide to have legally binding obligations
through treaties. In sum, international law defines the status, the rights, the responsibilities,
and obligations of the nations in foreign policy. Thus, it is the responsibility of every state to
observe the norms and laws, failure to which there are consequences.

International Organizations
International Organizations such as UN, IMF, World Bank have provided a very influential
role as a determinate of foreign policy. Proponents of International Relations heavily
disagree about the role these organizations play in the framing of foreign policy of states.
The realist approach in the international politics has usually had less assurance in the
effectiveness of international organizations. Mearsheimer for example, argued that
international institutions “are basically a reflection of the distribution of power in the world.
They are based on the self-interested calculations of the great powers, and they have no
independent effect on state behavior.” They only provide a minimum effect on the foreign
policy. This is called ‘bottom-up’ perspective that stress on how the foreign policies of
states impact international organizations. However, the Constructivist and liberal
institutionalist followed ‘top-down’ perspective and emphasized on how international
 7

organizations impact the foreign policies of states. The international organizations help in
modifiers of state

Political System
The political organization and institutions in a country, also greatly influences the foreign
policy of that country. Generally, under authoritarian or totalitarian forms of government,
easier and faster foreign decisions are possible because the decision-making power rests
with an individual or group of individuals. They are the sole decision makers and as their
decisions are made without any constraints or consultations, their foreign policy decisions
can be conflictual. It is also lead to a country’s isolation in international politics as happened
with the regimes in North Korea and Myanmar. On the other hand, in a state with
democratic system, foreign policy implementation tends to be difficult and slow as
compared to that of an authoritarian structure. Citizens in this system can freely express and
voice their opinion on the domestic as well as foreign policies of their country, making an
impact on the policies their government.

Q. 3 Discuss what role do theoretical approaches/models play in

understanding states’ foreign policy. Use at least one approach as an
example.

Answer-3
Foreign policy analysis allows us to better understand how political actors make policy
decisions and how they relate to other foreign government and non-government entities.
Foreign policy is a complex discipline wherein numerous actors work within structures both
inside and outside the state to have an impact on the decision-making process. It is useful to
have analytical process models to illuminate the dynamics in this field and help explain how
states conduct their foreign policy, international relations and diplomatic endeavors.

There are five main models in foreign policy analysis that will be explored in this article: the
rational actor model, the bureaucratic politics model and the organizational process model—
all three of which were developed by foreign policy analyst and scholar, Graham Allison,
and outlined in his book, The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis—as
well as the inter-branch politics model and the political process model. In order for an
international relations professional to effectively analyze foreign policy as a whole, it is
necessary to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of each model therein and
understand the ways in which each approach has the potential to remedy the inadequacies of
the others.

Rational Actor Model

 8

The most widely cited foreign policy analysis approach is the rational actor model. This
approach assumes that the main actor in foreign policy is a rational individual who can be
relied on to make informed, calculated decisions that maximize value and perceived benefits
to the state. The rational actor model relies on individual state-level interactions between
nations and government behavior as units of analysis; it assumes the availability of complete
information to policymakers for optimized decision making, and that actions taken
throughout time are both consistent and coherent. There are four main steps in the rational
actor’s decision-making process: identify the problem, define desired outcomes, evaluate the
consequences of potential policy choices and finally, make the most rational decision to
maximize beneficial outcomes.

The rational actor theoretical approach can be useful to understanding the goals and
intentions behind a foreign policy action. However, critics of this model believe it does not
account for instances when complete information may not be available, as well as the
relatively subjective concept of rationality or factors that might inhibit rational decision
making.

Bureaucratic Politics Model

Unlike the rational actor model, which looks at the state as a unitary actor, the bureaucratic
politics model analyzes decisions on the premise that actions are taken by a number of
independent, competing entities within a particular state. Each of these separate entities
brings values to the decision-making process, as well as its own view of what’s best for
personal, organizational and national interests. Each party attempts to satisfy its goals,
meaning any collective action is contingent upon successful negotiations and the arrival at
an ultimate consensus between all entities.

A number of factors can influence each party’s decision making and how it achieves its
goals, such as the relative power and degree of influence of each other actor in the group.
Each party has opposing viewpoints and desired outcomes related to an array of issues, and
success in achieving certain goals may require other parties to make certain concessions,
resulting in decisions that are often seen as more beneficial to one side than the others.
Additional factors that impact decision making include the degrees of importance of certain
goals and the political values each party represents. The increasingly partisan nature of U.S.
politics provides an excellent example of this model in action.

The bureaucratic politics approach is often touted as an explanation as to why states

sometimes act irrationally. However, some argue the model doesn’t account enough for
highly concentrated power held by certain entities, such as the executive branch in U.S.
governance. It is also seen as very U.S.-centric and difficult to apply in the context of other
styles of government.
 9

Organizational Process Model

In contrast to the two aforementioned approaches, the organizational process model views
government as a mix of powerful organizations working in concert rather than an individual
or a group of partisan entities. This model examines foreign policy decisions as made within
the rigid strictures of bureaucracy, where actions may only be taken with proper
authorization and adherence to the chain of command, respecting established processes and
standard operating procedures, or SOP. Here, government leaders don’t tackle the broader
scope of a crisis but instead delegate smaller facets of the issue to committees, departments
and other bureaucratic entities supporting the government.

Critics often bemoan the fact that this model limits individuals’ ability to act, which results
in reduced insight and a lack of alternative perspectives. The organizational process model
can also decrease the overall flexibility of an organization. However, applying this model
has the potential to streamline decision making with the establishment of standard protocol
for certain circumstances with predictable, measurable outcomes. In other words, the
organizational process model anticipates the measured pace of bureaucratic practices and
seeks to create protocol that can be readily applied in the event of a crisis

Inter-Branch Politics Model

The inter-branch politics model is similar to the organizational and bureaucratic process
models in that it involves separately defined groups or entities. However, rather than
focusing on singular goals and outcomes, the inter-branch politics model evaluates actions
and their outcomes based on the combined efforts and cohesiveness of different groups and
their progress toward achieving collective goals. According to Tan Qingshan, a political
science professor and Director of Asian Studies at Cleveland State University who first
introduced the model, the bureaucratic and organizational entities within and outside states
do not operate in complete independence, but rather interact and influence each other.

Political Process Model

The political process model of foreign policy analysis was developed by Roger Hilsman in
his book, The Politics of Policymaking in Defense and Foreign Affairs. According to
Hilsman, there are a large number of actors involved in the foreign policy decision-making
process, mainly concentrated in the office of the President and Congress, but across all
levels of government as well. Similar to the bureaucratic politics model, the political process
model emphasizes bargaining and the presence of various power centers seeking to achieve
their respective goals—these goals can either be in conflict or consensus with those of
others. However, this model differs from the bureaucratic politics model as it focuses more
on the individual participants and their personal goals and mindsets about international
politics rather than organizations and groups as a whole. According to Hilsman, the
 10

individual ideology of each political actor is one of the most important factors in
determining and explaining decision-making. Critics of the model, however, maintain that it
is too similar to the bureaucratic politics to make a substantive contribution to the field of
foreign policy analysis.

Foreign policy analysis is necessary to improve our overall understanding of the government
and the political decision-making processes that play out on the world stage. Each approach
to diplomacy offers a unique set of potential drawbacks and benefits, and emphasizes the
importance of the political actors and structures involved and how they work to attain their
foreign policy goals.