Theological Polemics and James I’s Diplomacy, 1603–1617

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-539
Author(s):  
R. Malcolm Smuts

Historians have typically represented James I as a king whose foreign policy was driven by a principled commitment to peace, religious reconciliation, and royal legitimacy that led him to avoid military engagement in confessional conflicts, notably the Thirty Years’ War. But his published writings on topics related to international politics and less formal pronouncements of principle in verbal discussions of European affairs have never received close contextual analysis. This essay examines how James deployed theoretical arguments in conducting diplomacy with other European states, especially France, in the period before the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War. It argues that rather than basing policy decisions on principled convictions, he often deployed ideas strategically in efforts to justify and advance his own interests, and sometimes to mislead other statesmen about his true intentions. He did have some deep convictions, especially his abhorrence of theological justifications for rebellion and regicide, but even his efforts to combat such arguments were shaped by practical political calculations as well as purely theoretical concerns. Although he took ideas seriously, a closer examination of his record reveals him as a shrewd, flexible, and sometimes duplicitous royal politician, adept at fashioning high-minded justifications for self-interested maneuvers, rather than an idealistic scholar-statesman.

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Friedman

This chapter describes widespread skepticism regarding the value of assessing uncertainty in international politics. “Agnostics” argue that assessments of uncertainty in international politics are too unreliable to be useful for shaping major foreign policy decisions. “Rejectionists” argue that attempting to assess uncertainty in international politics can be counterproductive, surrounding foreign policy analyses with illusions of rigor or exposing foreign policy analysts to excessive criticism. “Cynics” claim that foreign policy analysts and decision makers have self-interested motives to avoid assessing uncertainty. The chapter explains how these ideas lead many scholars, practitioners, and pundits to avoid holding careful debates about the risks surrounding major foreign policy choices. The chapter describes how this aversion to probabilistic reasoning appears in several high-profile cases, such as President Kennedy’s decision to authorize the Bay of Pigs invasion and President Obama’s decision to raid Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.


Author(s):  
Helen M. Kinsella

This chapter examines international feminism, focusing on how feminist international relations theories are necessary for understanding international politics, what feminist international relations theories provide for understanding international politics, and how feminist international relations theories have influenced the practice of international politics. The chapter proceeds by explaining feminism and feminist international relations theory as well as feminist conceptions of gender and power. It also discusses four feminist international relations theories: liberal feminist international relations, critical feminist international relations, postcolonial feminist international relations, and poststructural feminist international relations. Two case studies of women's organizations are presented: the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. There is also an Opposing Opinions box that asks whether feminist foreign policy changes states' foreign policy decisions.


1971 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Nye ◽  
Robert O. Keohane

World politics is changing, but our conceptual paradigms have not kept pace. The classic state-centric paradigm assumes that states are the only significant actors in world politics and that they act as units. Diverse domestic interests have effects on international politics only through governmental foreign policy channels. Intersocietal interactions are relegated to a category of secondary importance–the “environment” of interstate politics. As Karl Kaiser has pointed out, the reality of international politics has never totally corresponded to this model. Nevertheless, the model was approximated in the eighteenth century when foreign policy decisions were taken by small groups of persons acting within an environment that was less obtrusive and complex than the present one.


Author(s):  
Helen M. Kinsella

This chapter examines international feminism, focusing on whether feminist international relations theories are necessary for understanding international politics, what basis feminist international relations theories provide for understanding international politics, and how feminist international relations theories have influenced the practice of international politics. The chapter proceeds by explaining feminism and feminist international relations theory as well as feminist conceptions of gender and power. It also discusses four feminist international relations theories: liberal feminist international relations, critical feminist international relations, postcolonial feminist international relations, and poststructural feminist international relations. Two case studies of women's organizations are presented: the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. There is also an Opposing Opinions box that asks whether feminist foreign policy changes states' foreign policy decisions.


Author(s):  
David M. Webber

Having mapped out in the previous chapter, New Labour’s often contradictory and even ‘politically-convenient’ understanding of globalisation, chapter 3 offers analysis of three key areas of domestic policy that Gordon Brown would later transpose to the realm of international development: (i) macroeconomic policy, (ii) business, and (iii) welfare. Since, according to Brown at least, globalisation had resulted in a blurring of the previously distinct spheres of domestic and foreign policy, it made sense for those strategies and policy decisions designed for consumption at home to be transposed abroad. The focus of this chapter is the design of these three areas of domestic policy; the unmistakeable imprint of Brown in these areas and their place in building of New Labour’s political economy. Strikingly, Brown’s hand in these policies and the themes that underpinned them would again reappear in the international development policies explored in much greater detail later in the book.


1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 733-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Thompson

Recently a group of scholars, analysts, and diplomatists met for a weekend conference on theoretical approaches to international politics. Their discussion was inspired by the widespread and growing interest in conceptual and theoretical problems illustrated by parallel efforts in the study of politics, economics, law, and human relations. In the field of foreign relations the impulse toward theory comes from practitioners as well as philosophers. Indeed a former Secretary of State maintains that our most urgent need is for “an applicable body of theory in foreign policy.” Practical men with first-hand diplomatic experience point to the need for rational generalizations and intellectual structures to extract meaning from the jet stream of contemporary events. The intellectual processes by which practical judgments are made along a moving front of events clearly demand inquiry and analysis. Theory in the study of international politics perhaps derserves a special priority because of the urgency of the problem and the stridency of the debate generated by competing approaches each claiming to have preempted the field. Perhaps what is called for is a sorting out and assessment of the intellectual factors that go into diverse theories of international politics at varying levels of abstraction and generality. This sorting out was one of the objectives of the conferees. Similarly this paper seeks to review the nature and purpose of theory, its limitations, and the characteristics of the chief types of theory in international politics.


2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Hermann ◽  
Janice Gross Stein ◽  
Bengt Sundelius ◽  
Stephen G. Walker

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-360
Author(s):  
Arpad Abonyi ◽  
Ivan J. Sylvain ◽  
Brian W. Tomlin

This article depicts the configuration of approaches to the scientific study of foreign policy and international politics in Canada, as represented in a systematic survey of research written in Canada and published in forty scholarly journals, some from as early as 1945 up to 1975. Scientific studies found in this sample were analyzed along four dimensions : theoretical basis ; issue area ; units upon which the investigation is based ; and method of analysis. Scientific study of international relations emerged as a largely recent yet growing phenomenon of the last decade. It constitutes a unique subfield outside the mainstream of research, and is concentrated among a relatively small group of individuals and even fewer institutions. Études internationales emerged as the single most important channel of communication for this subfield in Canada


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document