scholarly journals La presse et la politique étrangère canadienne

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 501-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.A. Keenleyside ◽  
B.E. Burton ◽  
W.C. Soderlund

This article reports on the findings of what appears to be the first content analysis of all aspects of Canadian press coverage of Canadian foreign relations. Six major/newspapers were chosen on the basis of national significance and linguistic and regional considerations: the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, Le Devoir (Montréal), La Presse (Montréal), the Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun. During the period studied (the last quarter of 1982), these newspapers averaged nearly nine items per issue on Canadian foreign relations and relied predominantly on Canadian sources for their material. However, there was a relative lack of analytic coverage and only a limited number of items that adopted supportive or critical positions on the various issues in Canadian foreign policy. Commercial matters received both the most extensive and the most sophisticated treatment, while the reporting of political subjects was generally less detailed and often superficial. In terms of relationships, that with the United States was arguably the only one to receive adequate coverage, while from the standpoint of issues there were several that received insufficient attention, such an environmental problems in relations with the United States, Canadian concerns at the United Nations, and international developmental matters. One of the most notable differences in coverage among the papers studied was the variation found in the attention paid to the international role of Quebec, which received only scant attention in the English-language press but was the single most frequently coded theme in the Quebec newspapers. While analytic coverage was found to be more extensive and profound in the Globe and Mail, Le Devoir and La Presse than in the other three papers, the authors in general agree with De Montigny Marchand that Canadian newspapers are "an uncertain intellectual force in the definition and interpretation of Canadian foreign policy".

Author(s):  
Phil Tiemeyer

The impact of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) issues on U.S. foreign relations is an understudied area, and only a handful of historians have addressed these issues in articles and books. Encounters with unexpected and condemnable (to European eyes) sexual behaviors and gender comportment arose from the first European forays into North America. As such, subduing heterodox sexual and gender expression has always been part of the colonizing endeavor in the so-called New World, tied in with the mission of civilizing and Christianizing the indigenous peoples that was so central to the forging of the United States and pressing its territorial expansion across the continent. These same impulses accompanied the further U.S. accumulation of territory across the Pacific and the Caribbean in the late 19th century, and they persisted even longer and further afield in its citizens’ missionary endeavors across the globe. During the 20th century, as the state’s foreign policy apparatus grew in size and scope, so too did the notions of homosexuality and transgender identity solidify as widely recognizable identity categories in the United States. Thus, it is during the 20th and 21st centuries, with ever greater intensity as the decades progressed, that one finds important influences of homosexuality and gender diversity on U.S. foreign policy: in immigration policies dating back to the late 19th century, in the Lavender Scare that plagued the State Department during the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies, in more contemporary battles between religious conservatives and queer rights activists that have at times been exported to other countries, and in the increasing intersections of LGBTQ rights issues and the War on Terror that has been waged primarily in the Middle East since September 11, 2001.


Author(s):  
Kaete O'Connell

Sworn in as the 33rd President of the United States following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, Harry S. Truman faced the daunting tasks of winning the war and ensuring future peace and stability. Chided by critics for his lack of foreign policy experience but championed by supporters for his straightforward decision-making, Truman guided the United States from World War to Cold War. The Truman presidency marked a new era in American foreign relations, with the United States emerging from World War II unmatched in economic strength and military power. The country assumed a leadership position in a postwar world primarily shaped by growing antagonism with the Soviet Union. Truman pursued an interventionist foreign policy that took measures to contain Soviet influence in Europe and stem the spread of communism in Asia. Under his leadership, the United States witnessed the dawn of the atomic age, approved billions of dollars in economic aid to rebuild Europe, supported the creation of multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization, recognized the state of Israel, and intervened in the Korean peninsula. The challenges Truman confronted and the policies he implemented laid the foundation for 20th-century US foreign relations throughout the Cold War and beyond.


2020 ◽  
pp. 251-264
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Lee

This chapter describes specific points of divergence between the Third and Fourth Restatements of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States regarding how U.S. courts should engage with customary international law. The Third Restatement, adopted in 1987, envisioned U.S. courts fluent in and engaged with international law, deploying a U.S. foreign relations jurisprudence in dialogue with international law and lawyers. Customary international law was a central feature of this vision because it was the prime pathway for human rights litigation in federal courts when U.S. treaty-based human-rights initiatives had stalled. Appearing thirty years later, the Fourth Restatement exhibits a fundamentally different orientation toward customary international law. Customary international law is no longer embraced as it was in the Third Restatement as an opportunity to play offense, to advance the international law of human rights. That vision inspired a reaction among some U.S. legal scholars who questioned the U.S. federal law status of customary international law and the legitimacy of U.S. judges advancing the customary international law of human rights. The Fourth Restatement seeks a middle ground by defending against this revision of customary international law’s status role in the United States, concerned that the revisionist view might encourage and provide cover for U.S. courts to dismiss cases and claims with foreign policy ramifications that they should be adjudicating. The approaches of the two Restatements, taken together, have contributed to the disengagement of U.S. judges from customary international law altogether, to the detriment of U.S. conduct of foreign policy and contrary to the original constitutional specification of the judicial power of the United States as reflected in Article III, the Judiciary Act of 1789 that established the federal courts, and early historical practice.


Author(s):  
Andrew Preston

The United States began its existence as an act of foreign policy. It is no exaggeration to say that the nation owes its very existence to the successful pursuit of war and diplomacy. ‘First principles’ explains that over a period of forty years, from the outbreak of revolution in 1775 to the end of war with Britain in 1815, the founding generation established and consolidated a new nation by responding to a series of international challenges. Along the way, they established a set of first principles of foreign relations: namely, unilateralism, exceptionalism, and expansionism. These would shape Americans’ engagement with the wider world for centuries to come.


2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 453-475
Author(s):  
ASA MCKERCHER ◽  
TIMOTHY ANDREWS SAYLE

AbstractFor the past two decades, Canadian international historians have largely missed the Cold War, or at least a significant portion of it. Certainly, there has been no shortage of studies of Canadian foreign policy featuring the bipolar struggle, and yet historians have largely confined their attention to Canada's admittedly crucial relationship with the United States, while Canadian–Soviet relations have been ignored. Indeed, in the historiography of Canada's Cold War international relations, the communist powers are largely missing. Hoping to challenge this limited focus, we frame our article around two Canada–US air defence exercises held in 1959 and 1960. While historians have viewed these exercises within the context of Canada's relationship with the United States, we highlight the wider Cold War framework in which Canadian policy was formed. After all, these exercises occurred during the mini-détente of the late 1950s and the collapse of the Paris summit in May 1960. As we demonstrate, the failure to take full account of the Cold War is a shortcoming of much of the writing on Canadian international relations, and so we offer an example of the need to take seriously Canada's foreign policy toward the communist bloc.


2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-140
Author(s):  
Justin Massie

Résumé.Cet article propose, grâce à la notion de culture stratégique, une articulation du lien entre identité et politique étrangère. Il met plus particulièrement l'accent sur les effets des identités ethnoculturelles (anglophone et francophone) sur la politique de sécurité internationale du Canada, et soutient l'hypothèse qu'il en résulte une culture stratégique atlantiste et biculturelle, laquelle accorde une importance particulière à la France (de même qu'à la Grande-Bretagne et aux États-Unis). Il ressort de l'analyse historique de celle-ci que la centralité des identités ethnoculturelles canadiennes permet de mieux comprendre l'importance particulière dont jouit la France sur les limites normatives du multilatéralisme et de la légitimité de recourir à la force militaire par le Canada.Abstract.This article seeks to provide a constructivist account of Canadian foreign policy, linking identity and policy, through the concept of strategic culture. It focuses on Canada's dual ethnocultural identities (Anglophone and Francophone) and the bicultural and Atlanticist strategic culture that stems from it. It argues that this strategic culture helps explain France's significant importance (together with the United Kingdom and the United States) in defining the normative boundaries of Canada's multilateralism and legitimacy to use of military force abroad.


2001 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-225
Author(s):  
Roland Blaich

Nazi foreign policy was hampered from the start by a hostile foreign press that carried alarming reports, not only of atrocities and persecution of the political opposition and of Jews, but also of a persecution of Christians in Germany. Protestant Christians abroad were increasingly outraged by the so-called “German Christians” who, with the support of the government, gained control of the administration of the Evangelical state churches and set about to fashion a centralized Nazi church based on principles of race, blood, and soil. The militant attack by “German Christians” on Christian, as opposed to Germanic, traditions and values led to the birth of a Confessing Church, whose leaders fought to remain true to the Gospel, often at the risk of imprisonment. Such persecution resulted in calls from abroad for boycott and intervention, particularly in Britain and the United States, and threatened to complicate foreign relations for the Nazi regime at a time when Hitler was still highly vulnerable. In order to win the support of the German people and to consolidate the Nazi grip on German society, Hitler needed accomplishments in foreign policy and solutions to the German economic crisis. Both were possible only with the indulgence of foreign powers.


1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney

Disputes with foreign policy implications have often been brought to the federal courts. These cases call attention to the tension between the authority of the political branches to conduct the foreign relations of the United States and the authority of the courts to render judgments according to the law. How this tension is resolved, in turn, bears directly on the commitment of the United States to the rule of law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document