Struggle for the Turf

1985 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-415
Author(s):  
Henry Trofimenko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
The U.S

For anyone whose job is to study the United States, the memoirs of its statesmen provide more than merely entertaining reading. They not only give you a closer insight into the “kitchen” of statesmanship and political decision making; they also provide an opportunity to check the assumptions and paradigms that were constructed earlier to analyze the policy of any particular administration. The memoirs confirm that in spite of hundreds of books and thousands of articles in the U.S. press that discuss specific policies, as well as daily debates in Congress and its committees, press conferences, and official statements, the policy process is not as open as it might seem at first glance. Rather, American foreign policy is made within a very restricted circle of the “initiated”—official and unofficial presidential advisers, including selected members of the Cabinet.

James Brown Scott and the Rise of Public International Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hepp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle Class ◽  
International Law ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Lawyer ◽  
Legal Expertise ◽  
Insight Into

James Brown Scott played a key role in the growth of public international law in the United States from the 1890s to the 1940s. While little remembered today, he was well-known among his contemporaries as a leading spokesman for a new and important discipline. Scott rose from obscure middle-class origins to occupy a prominent and influential place as an international lawyer who shared his legal expertise with seven presidents and ten secretaries of state. By examining his life we gain insight into the establishment of public international law as a discipline and on the era when lawyersqualawyers began to help shape American foreign policy.

scholarly journals Resistensi Hubungan Luar Negeri Amerika Serikat dan Iran: Studi Kasus Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-175
Author(s):  
Wildan Ilmanuarif Shafar ◽  
Dian Mutmainah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Comprehensive Plan ◽  
Policy Decision Making ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

Since 2015 the United States has been a signatory of the historic nuclear agreement with Iran known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was also agreed by other P5+1 countries. JCPOA is the achievement of the U.S. and other P5+1 countries' negotiations with Iran regarding the limitation of Iran's nuclear program. JCPOA is also known to be the vital instrument to reduce Iran's capabilities regarding its aggressive behavior and malign activities, creating destabilization in the Middle East. However, in 2018 the United States government decided to withdraw its participation from the JCPOA. As we know, this decision had an impact on Iran's behavior, which several times violated the contents of the JCPOA agreement even though they did not leave the agreement. We are also witnessing the impact of this decision increase the conflict between the US and Iran in recent years. This research aims to explain the rationale of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018. This research using the foreign policy decision-making framework model by Charles W. Kegley and Gregory A. Raymond. This concept focuses on explaining factors of foreign policy decision-making in three sources of analysis and the process of foreign policy-making based on rational choice.

scholarly journals Coloso fragmentado: The “intermestic” agenda and Latin American foreign policy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Long
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Veto Players ◽  
Robert Putnam ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

“Intermestic” issues, including trade, migration, and drug-trafficking, dominate contemporary U.S.-Latin American relations and matter deeply to Latin American and Caribbean states. The differing dynamics these create within the U.S. foreign policy process have been broadly explored. However, this article asks what effects the dynamics of U.S. intermesticity have on Latin American and Caribbean foreign policy towards the United States. Building on work by Robert Putnam and Helen Milner, it argues that intermestic issues have narrower win-sets and more veto players than traditional foreign policy issues. This complicates attempts at influencing U.S. policies, putting Latin American and Caribbean states at a disadvantage. Intermestic diplomacy demands different strategies. The argument is examined against the case of the U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking dispute.

21. American foreign policy after 9/11

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Kennedy-Pipe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
Power Set ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

This chapter examines U.S. foreign policy after 9/11 with a view to looking at continuities as well as the disjunctions of Washington’s engagement with the world. It first considers the impact of 9/11 on the United States, particularly its foreign policy, before discussing the influence of neo-conservatism on the making of U.S. foreign policy during the presidency of George W. Bush. It then analyses debates about the nature of U.S. foreign policy over the last few decades and its ability to create antagonisms that can and have returned to haunt the United States both at home and abroad. It also explores how increasing belief in the utility of military power set the parameters of U.S. foreign policy after 9/11, along with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and concludes with an assessment of Barak Obama’s approach with regards to terrorism and his foreign policy agenda more generally.

scholarly journals ¿Somos tan diferentes? El intervencionismo militar en España, en Reino Unido y Estados Unidos

Araucaria ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 431-456
Author(s):  
Roberto Muñoz Bolaños
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Do So

The aim of this research is to carry out a comparative study of military interventionism in Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The thesis on which it is based is that armies intervene when the conditions are created for them to do so. There is no such thing as a dichotomy between interventionist and non-interventionist armies in the political decision-making process.

scholarly journals THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

2016 ◽  
pp. 181-189
Author(s):  
V. V. Pavlov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Security Council ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
National Security Council ◽  
White House ◽  
The U.S

Established in accordance with the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, the U.S. National Security Council is the main advisory body to the President of the United States tasked with helping the head of state to make the right decisions on matters related to national security. NSC system has been constantly evolving for some 70 years, and the NSC staff became a separate 'ministry' of a kind, allowing presidential administrations to focus ever-increasing control over American foreign policy in the White House. That is why serious attention is devoted to the National Security Council by American researches studying foreign policy decision-making. Here, a 'three-pronged consensus' exists: functioning and efficiency of the decision-making process is primarily a result of presidential actions; the President will make the best decision after becoming aware of the whole range of possible alternatives and assessing the consequences of each policy option; the position of the National Security Advisor, who is often one of the closest officials to the President and serves as a coordinator of the decision-making process, is considered to be one of the most notable in today's U.S. presidential administrations - and the most influential of those not being a subject to approval by the legislative branch of U.S. government. Any fundamental changes in the practice of U.S. foreign policy mechanism, as well as a decline of the White House influence on foreign policy are unlikely in the short term.

scholarly journals The Myth of 9/11 in Latin America

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-40
Author(s):  
Ana Isabel Lopez Garcia
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Latin American ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
The U.S

It is often argued that the first and most visible impact of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 has been the reordering of Washington’s priorities in its relations with Latin America. The United States (U.S.) has focused its attention outside the hemisphere and placed Latin America at the “bottom of U.S. terrorist agenda” (Youngers 2003). Various scholars argue that the U.S has returned to its Cold-War stance, in which it only notices those developments in Latin America that directly challenge U.S. interests (Hakim 2006). Accordingly, after 9/11 U.S. security demands have overshadowed other issues that Latin American countries consider priorities (Youngers 2003, 2). Susan Kauffman (2002), for instance, posits that: “once again the United States is looking at Latin America through a security lens, while Latin America wants the emphasis to remain on economic development.” The effects of U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America after 9/11 have not repeated the pattern of the Cold War. Although Latin America no longer is the overriding priority of American foreign policy, the U.S. has not neglected the region, nor, as many analysts have argued (Shifter 2004; Youngers 2003; Hakim 2006; Roett 2006), has it become disengaged from the hemisphere. The terrorist attacks did not introduce a different agenda for U.S.-Latin American relations from that of the post-Cold-War period. Free trade, illegal migration and the fight against drugs have continued to be the main issues of U.S.-Latin American relations. Even the trend towards militarization of U.S. foreign policy began in Latin America long before the terrorist attacks. U.S.-Latin America relations have been affected significantly not by the consequences of 9/11, but rather by the negative effects of the U.S-promoted economic model in the region. The failures of the so-called Washington Consensus are not linked to the terrorist attacks.

The Carnegie Poll on Values in American Foreign Policy

1989 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 297-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Aid ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
The U.S

In a brief summary of a poll conducted by the Carnegie Council, Myers outlines the American public's views on issues ranging from foreign policy/peace issues to economic security, defense, and human rights. The underlying perception of the United States as the “moral nation” raises a fundamental question: How deeply imbedded is the distinction between words and deeds in American foreign policy? Some results of the survey defied explanation. “Why are Americans so avid about human rights abroad, yet so reluctant to commit foreign aid, and so indignant about the U.S. dollars that are spent on NATO and Japanese security? Logic and sentiment remain interwoven,” concludes Myers.

Conclusion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Owen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Public Diplomacy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Western History ◽  
The U.S

This book has examined ideological contests in Western history and what they tell us about Islamism's prolonged struggle with secularism. In conclusion, it offers a few suggestions on what the United States ought to do and not to do in the Middle East and what this means for American foreign policy. It argues that the United States simply cannot decide the contest between Islamism and secularism and so should resort to what political scientist Jonathan Monten calls “exemplarism.” The U.S. government should also remember that, although it cannot resolve the Muslims' ideological contest by force, it can influence how Muslims themselves resolve it. This concluding chapter also considers two things that the United States can do to nudge constitutional democracy: to engage in public diplomacy and to remain the attractive society that it always has been—to be true to itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document