scholarly journals Policy Analysis and Planning in U.S. Foreign Policy: Interview with Dr. Mitchell Reiss, Director for Policy Planning, Department of State

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Geoffrey D. Antell ◽  
Diane Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Analyst ◽  
Policy Planning ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Planning Department ◽  
The U.S

On March 4, 2004, the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of Policy Perspectives sat down with Dr. Mitchell B. Reiss, Director for Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State, to discuss the role of the policy analyst in U.S. foreign policy.

The Role of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-371 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Decisionmaking Process ◽  
Legal Adviser ◽  
American Society ◽  
The U.S

In October 1988 the American Branch of the International Law Association and the American Society of International Law established a Joint Committee on the Role of the Legal Adviser of the Department of State. The Committee’s charge was to examine the role of the Legal Adviser in encouraging respect for international law in the U.S. government decisionmaking process, and to make suggestions and recommendations to enhance the Legal Adviser’s effectiveness in this regard. The thirty-four members of the Committee included nine former Legal Advisers, a former President’s counsel, other past and present U.S. government officials, academics and private attorneys. Collectively, the Committee reflected broad experience and a variety of perspectives as regards issues of U.S. foreign policy and international law. (The members of the Committee are listed in footnote 1.)

U.S. INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY: THE NUCLEAR DIMENSION

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-58
Author(s):  
GLEB TOROPCHIN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Nuclear Factor ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Asia Pacific Region ◽  
Nuclear Policy ◽  
Near Future ◽  
The Given ◽  
The U.S

The given article is dedicated to scrutinising the role of nuclear factor in the U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific region lately. The work is written based on the analysis of the official doctrinal documents defining U.S. foreign policy. The aim of the paper is defining the significance of the nuclear dimension in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy and trends in its evolution in late 2010s and early 2020s. The author dwells upon the features of conceptualising the term “Indo-Pacific” in the U.S. foreign policy strategy taking into account its transition from the expert discourse to the official one. Three layers of analysis are singled out: doctrinal, operational and institutional. Special attention is paid to the relations between the U.S. and its allies in the macroregion, including parties to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (i.e. India, Japan and Australia), as well as other countries, such as South Korea. The influence of China’s growing power and its claims for regional and global leadership on the shift in Washington’s foreign policy is also unveiled. The author discovers a direct correlation between the role of the maritime constituent in the “Indo-Pacific security” and the intention of the U.S. to develop the sea and air components in its nuclear triad. Various directions of the U.S. advancing its nuclear forces in the Asia Pacific are shown, as well as the role of adjacent projects in the field of security (such as “Global ABM”). Apart from this, the article demonstrates the factors that might have an impact on the U.S. nuclear policy in the region during J. Biden’s presidency. An attempt is made to predict possible scenarios in the near future.

scholarly journals Involvement of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the Events in Afghanistan in the Late 1970s

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-144
Author(s):  
Taisiуa Rabush ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Documentary Sources ◽  
East Region ◽  
The U.S

Introduction. In this article, the author examines the position of the countries of the Middle East region in the late 1970s with regard to the armed conflict in Afghanistan. The emphasis is on the period on the eve of the entry of the Soviet troops to Afghanistan – from the April Revolution of 1978 until December 1979. The author’s focus is on two states: Pakistan directly bordering on Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, which is a major geopolitical actor in the region. Methods and materials. The author relies on documentary sources such as “Department of state bulletin”, documents of secret correspondence of the U.S. foreign policy agencies, documents of the U.S. National Security Archive, and special volumes on Afghanistan and the Middle East in “Foreign Relations of the United States. Diplomatic Papers, 1977–1980”. Thanks to these sources, it is possible to prove that the involvement of the states of the region in the Afghan armed conflict and its internationalization began even before the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan. Analysis. First, an overview of the objectives pursued by these states in Afghanistan and in the internal Afghan armed conflict is given. Following this, the author consistently reveals the position of these states in relation to the April Revolution of 1978, the ever-increasing Soviet involvement in the Afghan events (1978–1979) and the civil war that started against the Kabul government. Results. In conclusion the article reveals the role of these states in the process of internationalization of the Afghan armed conflict, which, according to the author, began before the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan.

scholarly journals La réglementation américaine en matière de contrôle des armes chimiques et biologiques

2005 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-785
Author(s):  
Albert Legault
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Biological Weapons ◽  
Export Control ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Export Controls ◽  
Technical Data ◽  
Group A ◽  
The U.S

After identifying the role of the Australia Group which is a multilateral body designed to control export of sensitive chemicals, as well as « equipment » and « technical data » designed to fabricate chemical or bacteriological weapons, this study briefly overviews U.S. policy in terms of export controls, and then attempts to review the current U.S. regulations on chemical and bacteriological weapons. With regard to chemical weapons, the analysis goes back to the Iran-Irak war and traces the evolution of the various controls imposed on chemicals. With the March 13, 1991 decision, export controls exist on 50 chemicals and the warning list has now been reduced to zero. With regards to biological weapons, a whole new list of controls is now being discussed within the Australia Group. A list of 29 countries has been drawn up and the U.S. hope that the Australia Group will adopt similar controls when it meets in December 1991. The article also contains five annexes : the classification of groups countries for export control reasons ; a list of countries under foreign policy controls ; the classification of microorganisms according to their class and degree of pathogenicity; a list of the fifty precursors under control; and the chronological evolution of the U.S. controls imposed on chemicals.

Fact and Fiction

Worldview ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 14-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Inman
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Public Figure ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The U.S

Several recent books have been looked upon at the United Nations with varying degrees of interest and enthusiasm. Since the U.N. is in the U.S., and since its life is dependent upon the U.S. Government, it is natural that any utterances by prominent U.S. officials about the role of the U.N. in American foreign policy are read with fascination, trepidation and at times bewilderment. And indeed George W. Ball's The Discipline of Power was read at the U.N. with morbid fascination, bewilderment and despair. Unlike all previous heads of a U.S. delegation to the U.N., Ambassador Ball was the first who had not been a public figure, and he had no U.S. constituency.

scholarly journals To the Issue of Creation and Functioning of the U.S. Department of State (18th-19th Centuries)

2017 ◽  
pp. 273-289
Author(s):  
Tetiana Klynina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Thomas Jefferson ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
The Usa ◽  
William Jennings Bryan ◽  
The U.S

The article focuses on the question of the creation of the U.S. Department of State and its functions. We surveyed historiography (works by Mihalkanin E., Plischke E., West R.,Glad B. and so on). For over 200 years, the Department of State has conducted American diplomacy through war and peace, amidst the competing currents of isolationism and internationalism that have shaped American foreign policy and its commitment to liberty and democracy. The Department of State was established as the Department of Foreign Affairs by the act of July 27, 1789 and became the first Federal agency to be created under the new Constitution. In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State and assigned to it a variety of duties. There are 5 main periods of existence of the U.S. Department of State: the emerging State Department (1789-1860), the Department comes of age (1861-1895), managing the foreign affairs of a great power (1900-1940), the Department of state and the U.S. as a Superpower (1945-1960), the Department of State’s role in the U.S. Foreign Affairs Community (1961-2000). Special attention is paid to the positions of the Secretary of State who is in charge of defining and implementing U.S. foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson, Henry Kissinger, John Quincy Adams, William Jennings Bryan, Henry Clay, James Madison, George C. Marshall, George Schultz, and Daniel Webster are just a few of the Secretaries who played the greatest role in the providing of the USA’ foreign affairs. Then author gives the illustration of the secretary relations with the President, Cabinet and Congress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document