Skip to main content

Foreign policy change and international norms: a conceptual framework

Abstract

Foreign policy change (FPC) is an important topic and has therefore attracted much scholarly attention. Yet, the literature has largely overlooked how FPC is related to international norms. This special issue seeks to add value to the field of foreign policy analysis by strengthening the empirical literature linking FPC and international norms. The papers in this issue tease out the intervening factors in facilitating the relationship between foreign policy change and the international norm. The introductory article introduces the conceptual framework which draws on both the structure–agency and “push–pull” debates to provide the cohesive analytical structure for the issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. C.f. Marks, and Hooghe.Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Scholars of MLG draw on insights of neo-institutional approaches, which highlight that institutional rules on all levels influence but do not determine actor behavior (March and Olsen 1998; Immergut 1998), on liberal approaches to IR, which content that states’ international behavior is influenced by domestic considerations or constraints (Putnam 1988; Lehman and McCoy 1992) The Dynamics of the Two-Level Bargaining Game. The 1988 Brazilian Debt Negotiations. World Politics 44:600–44.)

References

  • Boekle, H., V. Rittberger, and W. Wagner. 2001. Constructivist foreign policy theory. In German foreign policy since unification: Theories and case studies, ed. Rittberger, 105–137. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T.A., and T. Risse. 2012. From Europeanisation to diffusion. West European Politics 35: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazys, S., and D. Panke. 2017. Push and pull forces in the UNGA analyzing foreign policy change in the context of international norms. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0056-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantir, C., and J. Kaarbo. 2012. Contested roles and domestic politics: Reflections on role theory in foreign policy analysis and IR theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8: 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsnaes, W. 1992. The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis. International Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 245–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. 1997. International norms and domestic politics: Bridging the rationalist—constructivist divide. European Journal of International Relations 3 (4): 473–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J.T. 1998. The constructive turn in international relations theory. World Politics 50 (2): 324–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortell, A.P., and J.W. Davis. 2005. When norms clash: International norms, domestic practices, and Japan’s internalisation of the GATT/WTO. Review of International Studies 31: 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doeser, F. 2011. Domestic politics and foreign policy change in small states. The fall of the Danish ‘footnote policy’. Cooperation and Conflict 46 (2): 222–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doeser, F., and J. Eidenfalk. 2013. The importance of windows of opportunity for foreign policy change. International Area Studies Review 16 (4): 390–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dukalskis, A. 2017. Foreign policy change and the international criminal court. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0057-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. 1996. Norms, culture, and world politics: insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization 50 (02): 325–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., and K. Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52 (04): 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, J.A. 2003. Foreign policymaking and group dynamics: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. International Studies Review 5 (2): 155–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann, K. 1982. Change and stability in foreign policy: Détente as a problem of stabilization. World Politics 34 (02): 230–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, J. 1999. How should we study foreign policy change? Cooperation and Conflict 34 (1): 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J.D., and M.G. Hermann. 2002. Leaders, groups, and coalitions. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, C. 2017. Advantages and disadvantages of inclusive multilateral venues: The rise and fall of the United Nations General Assembly resolution on new or restored democracies. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0058-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, C.F. 1990. Changing course: When governments choose to redirect foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 34 (1): 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, K.J. 1982. Why nations realign: Foreign policy restructuring in the postwar world. London: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, V. 2005. Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Immergut, Ellen M. 1998. The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics and Society 26: 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobi, A. 2017. Global norms and U.S. foreign policy change: The Governance of transnational. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0059-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1998. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization 52: 943–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. 2015. A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic turn in IR theory. International Studies Review 17 (2): 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, J. 2017. Coalition politics, international norms, and foreign policy: Multiparty decision-making dynamics in comparative perspective. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0060-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleistra, Y., and I. Mayer. 2001. Stability and flux in foreign affairs modelling policy and organizational change. Cooperation and Conflict 36 (4): 381–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. 1995. Norms reconstituting interests: Global racial equality and US sanctions against South Africa. International Organization 49 (03): 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperman, R.D. 2006. A dynamic framework for analyzing foreign policy decision making. International Studies Review 8 (3): 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kursani, S. 2017. Foreign policy coordination vis-à-vis the international norm of sovereignty: Macedonia’s and Montenegro’s recognition of Kosovo. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0061-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.W. 2012. Synthesis and reformulation of foreign policy change: Japan and East Asian financial regionalism. Review of International Studies 38 (04): 785–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legro, J.W. 1997. Which norms matter? Revisiting the ‘failure’ of internationalism. International Organization 51 (01): 31–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, Howard P., and Jennifer L. McCoy. 1992. The dynamics of the two-level bargaining game. The 1988 Brazilian debt negotiations. World Politics 44: 600–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkececi-Tanner, B. 2006. Reviewing the literature on sequential/dynamic foreign policy decision making. International Studies Review 8 (3): 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. 2013. Unequal actors in equalising institutions. Houndmills, Palgrave: Negotiations in the United Nations General Assembly.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D. 2014. Is bigger better? Activity and success in negotiations in the United Nations General Assembly. Negotiation Journal 30: 367–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics. The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42: 427–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D., and U. Petersohn. 2011. why international norms disappear sometimes. European Journal of International Relations 18: 719–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltner, A. 2017. Competing norms and foreign policy change—Humanitarian intervention and British foreign policy. International Politics. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0062-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, T. 1994. Ideas do not float freely: transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the cold war. International Organization 48 (02): 185–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati, J.A., J.D. Hagan, and M.W. Sampson (eds.). 1994. Foreign policy restructuring: How governments respond to global change. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J.G. 1998. What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization 52 (04): 855–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynhold, J. 2007. Cultural shift and foreign policy change Israel and the making of the Oslo accords. Cooperation and Conflict 42 (4): 419–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, V.P. 2000. Norms are what states make of them: The political psychology of norm violation. International Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, V.P., and J.W. Keller. 2007. Leadership style and international norm violation: The case of the Iraq war. Foreign Policy Analysis 3: 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, H. 2011. India and international norms of climate governance: A constructivist analysis of normative congruence building. Review of International Studies 37 (03): 997–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange, S. 1996. The retreat of the state. The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A.E. 1987. The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization 41 (03): 335–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehner, L.E., and C.G. Thies. 2014. Role theory, narratives and interpretation: The domestic contestation of roles. International Studies Review 16: 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, A. 2009. Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies 35 (1): 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, A. 2012. The invisible constitution of politics. Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich, P., J. Kranz, D. Totzek, D. Veit, and A. Picot. 2013. The impact of endogenous motivations on adoption of IT-enabled services the case of transformative services in the energy sector. Journal of Service Research 16 (3): 356–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For their helpful comments on previous versions of this work, we are grateful to the participants of the workshop, ‘Foreign Policy Changes and International Norms: Examining Internal and External Determinants’ in Freiburg, Germany, in October 2014. This research was supported by the Freiburg Institute for Advances Studies (FRIAS) at the University of Freiburg, Germany. Responsibility for any errors rests solely with the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Brazys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brazys, S., Kaarbo, J. & Panke, D. Foreign policy change and international norms: a conceptual framework. Int Polit 54, 659–668 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0063-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0063-7

Keywords

  • Foreign policy
  • Foreign policy change
  • International norms
  • Global governance
  • International organizations