scholarly journals MOCHIZUKI, Mike et al. Japan and the United States : Troubled Partners in a Changing World. Cambridge (MA), Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 1991, 156 p.

1993 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 249
Author(s):  
Lawrence T. Woods
1983 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Smith

This paper is concerned with examining the extent to which there is a geographical divide in the academic study of foreign policy analysis. Accepting that there are diverse approaches to that study in the academic communities of the United States and the United Kingdom, this paper argues that it is possible to distinguish between two ideal-types, each exemplified in one of the two communities. This paper outlines these—an American approach based on a desire to construct general theories of foreign policy behaviour, and a British approach which stresses the need for case-studies and eschews the possibility of general theory. The reasons for the development of these two approaches are then discussed, linking the study of foreign policy to the wider political arena, and the general academic orientation of the two countries. Finally, it assesses the possibility of arriving at a synthesis of the two approaches.


Author(s):  
Shannon Lindsey Blanton ◽  
David L. Cingranelli

Foreign policy analysis emerged as a subfield ino the late 1950s and early 1960s, when scholars began to focus on substate factors and on the decision making process in evaluating foreign policy. It was during this time that the United States embarked on an effort to establish internationally recognized legal standards aimed at protecting individual human rights. The United Nations Charter and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) made human rights promotion the responsibility of all member nations. But it was only in the late 1970s that human rights became an important component of quantitative foreign policy analysis. Numerous developments, including the Helsinki Accords of 1975 and the International Human Rights Covenants in 1976, helped elevate human rights concerns in the U.S. foreign policy making process. The scholarly literature on the subject revolves around three key issues: whether governments should make the promotion of human rights a goal of their foreign policies; whether the increasing use of human rights language in foreign policy rhetoric has been translated by the United States and other countries into public policies that have been consistent with that rhetoric; and whether the foreign policies of OECD governments actually have led to improved human rights practices in less economically developed countries. While scholars have produced a considerable amount of work that examines the various influences on the policy making process—whether at the individual, institutional, or societal levels of analysis—relatively few of them have focused on human rights perse.


1983 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Smith

For anyone interested in tracing the development of the comparative study of foreign policy behaviour the work of James Rosenau is central. His work in the 1960s was a major impetus in the formation of an identifiable research community in the United States; and the problems which he has addressed since that time have been the problems of comparative foreign policy analysis writ large. Above all, his work, exactly because it has attracted such sustained and widespread attention, has served as a focal point for a critique of the very possibility of the comparative analysis of foreign policy behaviour. Like it or loathe it, Rosenau's work represents the clearest and most extensive example of the comparative foreign policy school of thought.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-170
Author(s):  
Gerardo Gurza-Lavalle

This work analyses the diplomatic conflicts that slavery and the problem of runaway slaves provoked in relations between Mexico and the United States from 1821 to 1857. Slavery became a source of conflict after the colonization of Texas. Later, after the US-Mexico War, slaves ran away into Mexican territory, and therefore slaveholders and politicians in Texas wanted a treaty of extradition that included a stipulation for the return of fugitives. This article contests recent historiography that considers the South (as a region) and southern politicians as strongly influential in the design of foreign policy, putting into question the actual power not only of the South but also of the United States as a whole. The problem of slavery divided the United States and rendered the pursuit of a proslavery foreign policy increasingly difficult. In addition, the South never acted as a unified bloc; there were considerable differences between the upper South and the lower South. These differences are noticeable in the fact that southerners in Congress never sought with enough energy a treaty of extradition with Mexico. The article also argues that Mexico found the necessary leeway to defend its own interests, even with the stark differential of wealth and resources existing between the two countries. El presente trabajo analiza los conflictos diplomáticos entre México y Estados Unidos que fueron provocados por la esclavitud y el problema de los esclavos fugitivos entre 1821 y 1857. La esclavitud se convirtió en fuente de conflicto tras la colonización de Texas. Más tarde, después de la guerra Mexico-Estados Unidos, algunos esclavos se fugaron al territorio mexicano y por lo tanto dueños y políticos solicitaron un tratado de extradición que incluyera una estipulación para el retorno de los fugitivos. Este artículo disputa la idea de la historiografía reciente que considera al Sur (en cuanto región), así como a los políticos sureños, como grandes influencias en el diseño de la política exterior, y pone en tela de juicio el verdadero poder no sólo del Sur sino de Estados Unidos en su conjunto. El problema de la esclavitud dividió a Estados Unidos y dificultó cada vez más el impulso de una política exterior que favoreciera la esclavitud. Además, el Sur jamás operó como unidad: había diferencias marcadas entre el Alto Sur y el Bajo Sur. Estas diferencias se observan en el hecho de que los sureños en el Congreso jamás se esforzaron en buscar con suficiente energía un tratado de extradición con México. El artículo también sostiene que México halló el margen de maniobra necesario para defender sus propios intereses, pese a los fuertes contrastes de riqueza y recursos entre los dos países.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document