Power, information technology, and international relations theory: the power and politics of US foreign policy and the Internet

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-0499-53-0499
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
The Internet

Digital Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 451-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Ross
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
First Century ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Protest Movements ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Digital Diplomacy

We live in an era of pervasive connectivity. At an astonishing pace, much of the world’s population is joining a common network. The proliferation of communications and information technology creates very significant changes for statecraft. But we have to keep in mind that the Internet is not a magic potion for political and social progress. Technology by itself is agnostic. It simply amplifies the existing sociologies on the ground, for good or ill. And it is much better at organizing protest movements than organizing institutions to support new governments in place of those that have been toppled. Diplomacy in the twenty-first century must grapple with both the potential and the limits of technology in foreign policy, and respond to the disruptions that it causes in international relations.

scholarly journals THE GENESIS OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY: THE ORIGIN OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE TOPIC, 1610–1820S

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (73) (2) ◽  
pp. 81-93
Author(s):  
D. V. Dorofeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
North American ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
The North ◽  
The Us

The research is devoted to the study of the origin of the historiography of the topic of the genesis of the US foreign policy. The key thesis of the work challenges the established position in the scientific literature about the fundamental role of the work of T. Lyman, Jr. «The diplomacy of the United States: being an account of the foreign relations of the country, from the first treaty with France, in 1778, to the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, with Great Britain», published in 1826. The article puts forward an alternative hypothesis: the emergence of the historiography of the genesis of the foreign policy of the United States occurred before the beginning of the second quarter of the XIX century – during the colonial period and the first fifty years of the North American state. A study of the works of thirty-five authors who worked during the 1610s and 1820s showed that amater historians expressed a common opinion about North America’s belonging to the Eurocentric system of international relations; they were sure that both the colonists and the founding fathers perceived international processes on the basis of raison d’être. The conceptualization of the intellectual heritage of non-professional historians allowed us to distinguish three interpretations of the origin of the United States foreign policy: «Autochthonous» – focused on purely North American reasons; «Atlantic» – postulated the borrowing of European practice of international relations by means of the system of relations that developed in the Atlantic in the XVII–XVIII centuries; «Imperial» – stated the adaptation of the British experience. The obtained data refute the provisions of scientific thought of the XX–XXI centuries and create new guidelines for further study of the topic.

scholarly journals In search of enemies: Donald Trump’s populist foreign policy rhetoric

Politics ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 026339572093537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonny Hall
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
The Us ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
New Perspective

This article asks how Donald Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric during his presidential campaign and presidency has affected US foreign policy in the area of overseas counterterrorism campaigns. Looking at two case studies – the May 2017 Arab Islamic American Summit and the US role in the counter Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) campaign, it is argued that Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric has failed to accurately describe or legitimate his administration’s counterterrorism strategy, as per the conventional wisdom. Instead, Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric has largely been aimed at creating a sense of crisis (as populism requires) to mobilise his domestic base. In making this argument about the purpose of Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric, not only does the article contribute a new perspective to the extant literature on elections, rhetoric, and US foreign policy, but also to the burgeoning scholarship on governing populists and their foreign policies. Although these findings could be unique to Trump, the article’s novel framework – combining International Relations and populism scholarship to elaborate on how the foreign arena can be used to generate a state of perpetual crisis – can hopefully be applied in other contexts.

The Enduring Value of Christian Realism

2015 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Patterson
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Foreign Policy Analysis ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Political Thinking ◽  
Reinhold Niebuhr ◽  
Christian Realism ◽  
Relevant Today

Christian realism is a “community of discourse” launched by Reinhold Niebuhr and his contemporaries that remains relevant today providing thoughtful perspective on contemporary policy challenges in the foreign policy analysis strand of the formal study of International Relations. The essay lays out some of the basic principles that unite Christian realists, considers whether or not it can be considered a strain of academic “International Relations Theory”, suggests areas for the growth of Christian realist discourse in applied political thinking today, and concludes with some differences between Niebuhrian and Kuyperian approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document