Do We Need 195 Theories of Foreign Policy?

  • Benjamin Herborth
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)

Abstract

In one of the few genuinely theoretical contributions to the study of foreign policy, James Rosenau (1987) has called for its country-specific theorization. If foreign policy is to differ from international theory at all, it must do so by refusing to gloss over the particularities of the foreign policies of individual states. Where international theory can afford to focus on ‘broader systemic patterns’, foreign policy theory collects the windfall. It gains its distinctive character by shedding light on the complex enmeshment of foreign policy processes in historical, cultural and institutional factors, which are in no small part peculiar to the specific state under scrutiny. Against this background, Rosenau’s injunction seems almost self-evident. Yet, even if we were in possession of a number of foreign policy theories approximating the number of sovereign states this would leave us in a state of dissatisfaction, if these individual theories remained unconnected. Theorizing the foreign policy of individual states seems to be at the same time necessary and insufficient, for any account of a state’s foreign policy involves at least an implicit conception of its (global) environment. How exactly the global environment is understood, however, crucially shapes the possibilities of foreign policy theory. Foreign policy understood to take place in an international system of states equipped with asymmetric material capabilities will look vastly different from a foreign policy understood to take place in a post-national constellation characterized by the struggle for supranational forms of constitutionalization, or a functionally differentiated world society where the autopoietic closure of function systems operating on a global level makes a state-centric focus appear atavistic.

Keywords

Foreign Policy International Relation World Society International Relation International Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, M. (2002) Zur Politik der Weltgesellschaft. Politik und Recht im Kontext internationaler Vergesellschaftung (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft).Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G. and Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Reading: Longman).Google Scholar
  3. Banchoff, T. (1999) ‘German Identity and European Integration’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:(3), 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartelson, J. (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, T. U. (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  6. Carlsnaes, W. (2008) ‘Actors, Structures, and Foreign Policy Analysis’, in Smith, S., A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 85–100.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, E. H. (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 (Harmondsworth: Harper Perennial).Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, B. (2007) Power and German Foreign Policy: Embedded Hegemony in Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doty, R. L. (1993) ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly, 37:(3), 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffield, J. (1999) ‘Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism’, International Organization, 53:(4), 765–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elias, N. (1997) Über den Prozess der Zivilisation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  12. Elias, N. (1989) Studien über die Deutschen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  13. Engelmann-Martin, D. and T. Risse (2002) ‘Identity Politics and European Integration. The Case of Germany.’, in Padgen, A. (ed.) The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 287–316.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2004) Sicherheit, Territorium, Bevölkerung. Geschichte der Gouvernementalität I (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  15. Gujer, E. (2007). Schluss mit der Heuchelei. Deutschland ist eine Großmacht (Hamburg: Körber-Stiftung).Google Scholar
  16. Haftendorn, H. (2006) Coming of Age: German Foreign Policy since 1945 (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
  17. Harnisch, S. and Maull, H. W. (eds). (2001) Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Hellmann, G. (2009a) ‘IR/Foreign Policy Theory and German Foreign Policy’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 12:(3), 251–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hellmann, G. (2009b) ‘Fatal Attraction? German Foreign Policy and IR/Foreign Policy Theory’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 12:(3), 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hudson, V. (2005) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis. Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1:(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson, P. Th. and Nexon, D. H. (2002) ‘Globalization and the Comparative Method’, in Green, D. (ed.) Constructivism in Comparative Politics (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe), 88–120.Google Scholar
  22. Kessler, O. (2009) ‘Toward a Sociology of the International? International Relations between Anarchy and World Society’, International Political Sociology, 3:(1), 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kessler, O. (2012) ‘On Logic, Intersubjectivity, and Meaning: Is Reality an Assumption We Just Don’t Need?’ Review of International Studies, 38:(1), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koselleck, R. (2003) ‘Deutschland — Eine Verspätete Nation?’, in Koselleck, R., (ed.) Zeitschichten (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp), 359–380.Google Scholar
  25. Kratochwil, F. (2007) ‘Re-thinking the “Inter” in International Politics’, Millennium, 35:(3), 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lepenies, W. (2006) Kultur und Politik. Deutsche Geschichten (München: Hanser).Google Scholar
  27. Luhmann, N. (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  28. Luhmann, N. (1980) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik I (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  29. Maull, H. W. (2000) ‘Germany and the Use of Force: Still a “Civilian Power”?’ Survival, 42:(2), 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgenthau, H. (ed.) (1951) Germany and the Future of Europe (Chicago: Chicago University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Neumann, I. (2007) ‘When Did Norway and Denmark Get Distinctively Foreign Policies?’ Cooperation and Conflict, 42:(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oevermann, U. (1991) ‘Genetischer Strukturalismus und das Problem der sozialwissenschaftlichen Erklärung des Neuen’, in Müller-Doohm, S. (ed.) Jenseits der Utopie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp), 267–336.Google Scholar
  33. Osiander, A. (2001) ‘Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth’, International Organization, 55:(2), 251–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plessner, H. (2001) Die verspätete Nation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  35. Rosenau, J. N. (1971) The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
  36. Rosenau, J. N. (1987) ‘Toward Single-Country Theories of Foreign Policy: The Case of the USSR’, in Hermann, Ch. F., Ch. W. Kegley Jr., and J. N. Rosenau (eds.) New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen & Unwin), 53–74.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenau, J. N. (2005) ‘A Declaration of Interdependence’, International Studies Perspectives, 6:(1), C3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosenberg, J. (2006) ‘Why Is There No International Historical Sociology?’ European Journal of International Relations, 12:(3), 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schöllgen, G. (2004) Der Auftritt. Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbühne (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag).Google Scholar
  40. Schwarz, H.-P. (1985) Die gezähmten Deutschen. Von der Machtbesessenheit zur Machtvergessenheit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt).Google Scholar
  41. Schwarz, H.-P. (2005) Republik ohne Kompass. Anmerkungen zur deutschen Außenpolitik (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag).Google Scholar
  42. Smith, Steve (1986) ‘Theories of Foreign Policy: An Historical Overview’, Review of International Studies, 12:(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stichweh, R. (2000) Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).Google Scholar
  44. Teschke, B. (2002) ‘Theorizing the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism’, European Journal of International Relations, 8:(1), 5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Teschke, B. (2003) The Myth of 1648 (London: Verso).Google Scholar
  46. Tickner, A. B., and Wæver, O. (eds.) (2009) International Relations Scholarship around the World (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  47. Tilly, C. (1992) Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  48. Tilly, C. (1985) ‘War-Making and State-Making as Organized Crime’, in Evans, P. B., D. Rueschemeyer, and Th. Skocpol (eds.) Bringing the State Back in (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wæver, O. (1996) ‘Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy’, available at: www.ciaonet.org/wps/wao01/ (last accessed: 26 February 2015).Google Scholar
  50. Wæver, O. (2002) ‘Security: A Conceptual History for International Relations’, Paper Presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, 24–27 March (New Orleans).Google Scholar
  51. Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/Outside (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  52. Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar
  53. Weldes, Jutta. (1996) ‘Constructing National Interests’, European Journal of International Relations, 2:(3), 275–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zehfuss, M. (2007) Wounds of Memory: The Politics of War in Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Benjamin Herborth 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Herborth

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations