Feedback Loops as Links between Foreign Policy and International Relations: The US War on Terror

  • Frank Gadinger
  • Dirk Peters
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)


Even in a globalized world, states persist and continue to pursue foreign policies. Yet the analysis of these foreign polices has become more difficult and the confines of the disciplines we are working in are not always helpful in addressing these difficulties. As the boundaries between the internal and external become increasingly blurry and states become more and more enmeshed in their global environment, the relation between foreign policy and international environment becomes more immediate. State policies are more directly affected by the international environment, but they, in turn, also have a more immediate impact on this environment themselves. Consequently, feedback between states’ foreign policies and their external environments is apparent in many policy fields such as climate policy, Western interventionism and the global financial crisis.


Feedback Loop Foreign Policy International Relation International Politics International Relation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acuto, M. and Curtis, S. (eds.) (2014) Re-Assembling International Theory. Assemblage Thinking and International Relations (Palgrave MacMillan).Google Scholar
  2. Adler, E. (2005) Communitarian International Relations. The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations (London and New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  3. Adler, E. and Haas, P. M. (1992) ‘Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program’, International Organization, 46:(1), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adler, E. and Pouliot, V. (2011) ‘International Practices’, International Theory, 3:(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alker, H. R. (2011) ‘The Powers and Pathologies of Networks: Insights from the Political Cybernetics of Karl W. Deutsch and Norbert Wiener’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:(2), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allison, G. T. (1971) The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Glenview: Scott-Foresman).Google Scholar
  7. Arbour, L. (2008) ‘The Responsibility to Protect as a Duty of Care in International Law and Practice’, Review of International Studies, 34:(3), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning. A Theory of Action Perspective (Reading: Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar
  9. Bacevich, A. J. (2008) The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (New York: Metropolitan Books).Google Scholar
  10. Badie, D. (2010) ‘Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 6:(4), 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnett, M. (1999) ‘Culture, Strategy, and Foreign Policy Change: Israel’s Road to Oslo’, European Journal of International Relations, 5, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (2005) ‘Power in International Politics’, International Organization, 59:(1), 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beer, S. (1959) Cybernetics and Management (London: English Universities Press).Google Scholar
  14. Best, J. and Walters, W. (eds.) (2013) ‘Forum on “Actor-Network Theory” and International Relationality: Lost (and Found) in Translation’, International Political Sociology, 7:(3), 332–349.Google Scholar
  15. Bousquet, A. and Curtis, S. (2011) ‘Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory, Systems Thinking and International Relations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 24:(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breslauer, G. and Tetlock, P. (eds.) (1991) Learning in US and Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder: Westview Press).Google Scholar
  17. Bueger, C., and Gadinger, F. (2014) International Practice Theory. New Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan).Google Scholar
  18. Bush, G. W. (2001) ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People’, 20 September, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Buzan, B., and Little, R. (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  20. Campbell, D. (2002) ‘Time Is Broken: The Return of the Past in the Response to September 11’, Theory & Event, 5:(4), 1–11.Google Scholar
  21. Carlsnaes, Walter. 1992. ‘The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’ International Studies Quarterly 36:(3), 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cederman, L. and Daase, C. (2003) ‘Endogenizing Corporate Identities: The Next Step in Constructivist IR Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crawford, N. C. (2004) ‘The Road to Global Empire: The Logic of US Foreign Policy after 9/11’, Orbis, 48:(4), 685–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Croft, S. (2006) Culture, Crisis and America’s War on Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deutsch, K. W (1966) The Nerves of Government. Models of Political Communication and Control (New York: The Free Press).Google Scholar
  26. Devetak, R. (2009) ‘After the Event: Don DeLillo’s White Noise and September 11 Narratives’, Review of International Studies, 35, 795–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dillon, M., and Reid, J. (2001) ‘Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War’, Millennium — Journal of International Studies, 30:(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dolowitz, D. P. and Marsh, D. (2000) ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy-Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making’, Governance, 13:(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doty, R. L. (1997) ‘Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 3:(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duffield, M. (2002) ‘War as a Network Enterprise: The New Security Terrain and Its Implications’, Cultural Values: Journal for Cultural Research, 6:(1/2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dyson, S. B. (2009) ‘“Stuff Happens”: Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq War’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5:(4), 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fioretos, O. (2011) ‘Historical Institutionalism and International Relations’, International Organization, 65:(2), 367–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Franke, U. and Roos, U. (2010) ‘Actor, Structure, Process: Transcending the State Personhood Debate by Means of a Pragmatist Ontological Model for International Relations Theory’, Review of International Studies, 36:(4), 1057–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freeman, R. (2006) ‘Learning in Public Policy’, in Moran, M., M. Rein, and R. E. Goodin (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 367–388.Google Scholar
  35. Gaddis, J. L. (1992/1993) ‘International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War’, International Security, 17:(3), 5–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gadinger, F. and Peters, D. (2014) ‘Feedback Loops in a World of Complexity. A Cybernetic Approach at the Interface of Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  37. Goede, M. de (2008) ‘The Politics of Preemption and the War on Terror in Europe’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:(1), 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haas, E. B. (1990) When Knowledge Is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organizations (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  39. Hall, P. A. (1993) ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State’ Comparative Politics, 25:(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis. A Critical Introduction (Houndmills: Palgrave).Google Scholar
  41. Hellmann, G., Baumann, R. Bösche, M. Herborth, B. and Wagner, W. (2005) ‘De-Europeanization by Default? Germany’s EU Policy in Defense and Asylum’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1:(1), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holland, J. (2011) ‘Foreign Policy and Political Possibility’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Houghton, D. P. (2007) ‘Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 3:(1), 24–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howard, P. (2004) ‘Why Not Invade North Korea? Threats, Language Games, and US Foreign Policy’, International Studies Quarterly, 48:(4), 805–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hudson, V. M. and Vore, C. (1995), Foreign Policy Analysis, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’, Mershon International Studies Review, 39:(2), 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hudson, V. M. (2005) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1:(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hudson, V. M. (2007) Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub).Google Scholar
  48. Jackson, P. T. and Nexon, D. H. (1999) ‘Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:(3), 291–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jackson, R. (2005) Writing the War on Terrorism (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar
  50. Janis, I. L. (1982) Groupthink (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin).Google Scholar
  51. Jervis, R. (2005) American Foreign Policy in a New Era (New York, NY: Routledge).Google Scholar
  52. Kahler, M. (1998) ‘Rationality in International Relations’, International Organization, 52:(4), 919–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. (1977) Power and Interdependence (New York, NY: Longman).Google Scholar
  54. Knorr Cetina, K. (2005) ‘Complex Global Microstructures: The New Terrorist Societies’, Theory, Culture & Society, 22:(5), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kratochwil, F. and Ruggie, J. G. (1986) ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization, 40:(4), 753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krebs, R. and Lobasz, J. (2007) ‘Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq’, Security Studies, 16:(3), 409–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lawson, G. (2012) ‘The Eternal Divide? History and International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:(2), 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levy, J. S. (1994) ‘Learning and Foreign Policy. Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield’, International Organization, 48:(2), 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mabee, B. (2007) ‘Levels and Agents, States and People: Micro-Historical Sociological Analysis and International Relations’, International Politics, 44, 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mabee, B. (2011) ‘Historical Institutionalism and Foreign Policy Analysis: The Origins of the National Security Council Revisited’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 7:(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mitchell, D. and Massoud, T. G. (2009) ‘Anatomy of Failure: Bush’s Decision-Making Process and the Iraq War’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5:(3), 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morgenthau, H. (1948) Politics among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred Knopf).Google Scholar
  63. National Security Strategy (2002) ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States’, available at: Scholar
  64. North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nye, J. (1987) ‘Nuclear Learning and US-Soviet Security Regimes’, International Organization, 41:(3), 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pickering, A. (2010) The Cybernetic Brain. Sketches of Another Future (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pillar, P. (2006) ‘Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq’, Foreign Affairs, 85:(2), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995) ‘Democratic Peace — Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument’, European Journal of International Relations, 1:(4), 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rose, G. (1998) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’, World Politics, 51:(1), 144–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rose, R. (1991) ‘What Is Lesson-Drawing?’ Journal of Public Policy, 11:(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N. and Bigelow, J. (1943) ‘Behavior, Purpose and Teleology’, Philosophy of Science, 10:(1), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roy, O. (2008) The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East (London: Hurst).Google Scholar
  73. Sørensen, G.(1999) ‘Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution’, Political Studies, 47:(3), 590–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stein, J. G. (1994) ‘Political Learning by Doing: Gorbachev as Uncommitted Thinker and Motivated Learner’, International Organization, 48:(2), 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stiglitz, J. E. and Bilmes, L. J. (2008) The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (New York: Norton & Company).Google Scholar
  76. Waltz, K. N. (1979) ‘Theory of International Politics’, in Addison-Wesley Series in Political Science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar
  77. Wendt, A. (1992) ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It. The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, 46:(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wendt, A. and Duvall, R. (1989) ‘Institutions and International Order’, in Czempiel, E., and J. N. Rosenau (eds.) Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges. Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books), 51–74.Google Scholar
  80. Wiener, N. (1948) Cybernetics. Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (New York: J. Wiley).Google Scholar
  81. Wiener, N. (1954) The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society (New York, NY: Da Capo Press).Google Scholar
  82. Wight, C. (2006) Agents, Structures and International Relations. Politics as Ontology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Woodward, B. (2004) Plan of Attack (New York: Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
  84. Young, M.D. and Schafer, M. (1998) ‘Is There Method in Our Madness? Ways of Assessing Cognition in International Relations’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42:(1), 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Frank Gadinger and Dirk Peters 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Gadinger
  • Dirk Peters

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations