Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Außenpolitikanalyse in den Internationalen Beziehungen

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Internationale Beziehungen

Part of the book series: Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften ((SRS))

  • 614 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Außenpolitikanalyse stellt in den Internationalen Beziehungen sowohl ein Forschungsfeld als auch eine besondere Perspektive dar. Das Forschungsfeld umfasst vielfältige Erklärungsansätze, die innenpolitische Faktoren auf der staatlichen Analyseebene in unterschiedlicher Art und Weise als Einflussgrößen auf Außenpolitik konzeptualisieren. Als Perspektive richtet die Außenpolitikanalyse den Blick auf die individuelle Analyseebene und stellt die subjektiven Wahrnehmungen außenpolitischer Entscheidungsträger in den Mittelpunkt. Der Beitrag bietet einen Überblick über wichtige Forschungsrichtungen in der Außenpolitikanalyse und argumentiert, dass eine stärkere Resonanz der Außenpolitikanalyse in den IB – als Forschungsfeld und Perspektive – innovative Anstöße für das Fach verspricht.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ich danke Klaus Brummer für seine Anmerkungen und Kommentare zu einer früheren Version des Beitrags.

Literatur

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2004. How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization 58(2): 239–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2011. Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly 55(1): 95–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, John H., Christoper Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler, und Kristin Thompson Sharp. 2006. Foreign policy and the electoral connection. Annual Review of Political Science 9:477–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, Graham T. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alons, Gerry C. 2007. Predicting a state’s foreign policy: State preferences between domestic and international constraints. Foreign Policy Analysis 3(2): 211–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, David P. 1999. Inward bound: Domestic institutions and military conflicts. International Organization 53(3): 469–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Matthew A., und Philip B. Potter. 2008. The relationships between mass media, public opinion, and foreign policy: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science 11:39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, Matthew A., und Philip B. K. Potter. 2015. War and democratic constraint. How the public influences foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Derek, und Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2020. Analyzing foreign policy, 2. Aufl. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bearce, David H., und V. Ximena Velasco-Guachalla. 2020. How can we explain regime type differences if citizens don’t vote based on foreign economic policy? Foreign Policy Analysis 16(3): 492–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boekle, Henning, Volker Rittberger, und Wolfgang Wagner. 2001. Soziale Normen und normgerechte Außenpolitik. Konstruktivistische Außenpolitiktheorie und deutsche Außenpolitik nach der Vereinigung. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 11(1): 71–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuning, Marijke. 2013. Roles and realities: When and why gatekeepers fail to change foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 9(3): 307–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breuning, Marijke. 2018. Role theory in foreign policy. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 2, 584–599. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brulé, David J. 2005. Explaining and forecasting leaders’ decisions: A poliheuristic analysis of the Iran hostage rescue mission. International Studies Perspectives 6(1): 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummer, Klaus. 2013. Die Innenpolitik der Außenpolitik. Die Große Koalition, „Governmental Politics“ und Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brummer, Klaus, und Valerie Hudson, Hrsg. 2015. Foreign policy analysis beyond North America. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brummer, Klaus, und Kai Oppermann. 2019. Außenpolitikanalyse, 2. Aufl. Boston: de Gruyter Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brummer, Klaus, Sebastian Harnisch, Kai Oppermann, und Diana Panke, Hrsg. 2019. Foreign policy as public policy? Promises and pitfalls. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brummer, Klaus, Michael D. Young, Özgur Özdamar, Sercan Canbolat, Consuelo Thiers, Christian Rabini, Katharina Dimmroth, Mischa Hansel, und Ameneh Mehvar. 2020. Forum: Coding in tongues: Developing non-English coding schemes for leadership profiling. International Studies Review 22(4): 1039–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantir, Cristian, und Juliet Kaarbo. 2016. Unpacking ego in role theory. Vertical and horizontal role contestation and foreign policy. In Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations, Hrsg. Cristian Cantir und Juliet Kaarbo, 1–22. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsnaes, Walter. 2013. Foreign policy. In Handbook of international relations, Hrsg. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse und Beth A. Simmons, 2. Aufl., 298–325. London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Charillon, Frédéric. 2018. Public opinion and foreign policy analysis. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 2, 483–496. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, Jeffrey 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, Jeffrey T. 1999. Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly 43(1): 83–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, David H., und Timothy Nordstrom. 2005. Democratic variants and democratic variance: How domestic constraints shape interstate conflict. Journal of Politics 67(1): 250–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dueck, Colin. 2006. Reluctant crusaders: Power, culture, and change in American grand strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, Stephen B. 2006. Personality and foreign policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq decisions. Foreign Policy Analysis 2(3): 289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, Stephen B., und Matthew J. Parent. 2018. The operational code approach to profiling political leaders: Understanding Vladimir Putin. Intelligence and National Security 33(1): 84–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, Colin. 1996. Cause, effect, and consistency. A response to Kenneth Waltz. Security Studies 6(1): 58–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elman, Miriam F. 2000. Unpacking democracy: Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and theories of democratic peace. Security Studies 9(4): 91–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista, Matthew. 1997. Domestic structure and international change. In New thinking in international relations theory, Hrsg. Michael Doyle und G. John Ikenberry, 202–228. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelista, Matthew. 1999. Unarmed forces. The transnational movement to end the Cold War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Peter B. 1993. Building an integrative approach to international and domestic politics. Reflections and projections. In Double-edged diplomacy. International bargaining and domestic politics, Hrsg. Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson und Robert D. Putnam, 397–430. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, James D. 1998. Domestic politics, foreign policy, and theories of international relations. Annual Review of Political Science 1:289–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, Martha, und Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4): 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foulon, Michiel. 2018. Neoclassical realist analyses of foreign policy. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 2, 255–266. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawronsky, Bertram, und Fritz Strack, Hrsg. 2012. Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition. New York: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, Alexander L. 1969. The ‚operational code‘: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. International Studies Quarterly 13(2): 190–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, Nehemia, und Alex Mintz, Hrsg. 1997. Decision-making on war and peace. The cognitive-rational debate. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Götz, Elias. 2021. Neoclassical realist theories, intervening variables, and paradigmatic boundaries. Foreign Policy Analysis 17(2): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowa, Joanne. 1999. Ballots and bullets: The elusive democratic peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haesebrouck, Tim, und Patrick A. Mello. 2020. Patterns of political ideology and security policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 16(4): 565–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Eric. 2018. Democratic domestic institutions and foreign policy. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 1, 342–362. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnisch, Sebastian, Cornelia Frank, und Hanns W. Maull, Hrsg. 2011. Role theory in international relations: Approaches and analyses. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Jarrod. 2012. The democratic peace and the new evolution of an old idea. European Journal of International Relations 18(4): 767–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, Margaret G. 1980. Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly 24(1): 7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, Margaret G. 2001. How decision units shape foreign policy: A theoretical framework. International Studies Review 3(2): 47–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, Margaret G. 2005. Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In The psychological assessment of political leaders. With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, Hrsg. Jerrold M. Post, 178–212. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, Stephanie C., und Benjamin Martill. 2021. The party scene: New directions for political party research in foreign policy analysis. International Affairs 97(2): 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, K. J. 1970. National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 14(3): 233–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, Ole R. 1992. Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann consensus. International Studies Quarterly 36(4): 439–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, David P. 2007. Reinvigorating the study of foreign policy decision making: Toward a constructivist approach. Foreign Policy Analysis 3(1): 24–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, David P. 2013. The decision point. Six cases in U.S. foreign policy decision making. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Valerie M. 2014. Foreign policy analysis. classic and contemporary theory, 2. Aufl. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Valerie M., und Benjamin S. Day. 2020. Foreign policy analysis. Classic and contemporary theory, 3. Aufl. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, Irving L. 1982. Groupthink. Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes, 2. Aufl. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, Juliet. 2012. Coalition politics and cabinet decision making: A comparative analysis of foreign policy choices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, Juliet, und Ryan Beasley. 2008. Taking it to the extreme: The effect of coalition cabinets on foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 4(1): 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaarbo, Juliet, und Cameron G. Thies, Hrsg. i. E. Oxford handbook of foreign policy analysis. Im Erscheinen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, und Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, Peter J. 1976. International relations and domestic structures: Foreign economic policies of advanced industrial states. International Organization 30(1): 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keck, Margaret E., und Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, D. Roderick, und Matthew McCubbins. 1991. The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, Herbert P. 1986. Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science 18(1): 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leites, Nathan. 1951. The operational code of the Politburo. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Jack S. 1997. Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly 41(1): 87–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobell, Steven E., Norrin M. Ripsman, und Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Hrsg. 2009. Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, James G., und Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, Rose. 1994. Prospect theory in international relations: The Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission. In Avoiding losses/taking risks: Prospect theory and international conflict, Hrsg. Barbara Farnham, 73–99. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, Rose. 2004. Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology 25(2): 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meibauer, Gustav, et al. 2021. Forum: Rethinking neoclassical realism at theory’s end. International Studies Review 23(1): 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, Helen V., und Keito Kubota. 2005. Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization 59(1): 107–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, Alex. 2004. How do leaders make decisions? A poliheuristic perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(1): 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, Andrew. 1993. Introduction. Integrating international and domestic theories of international bargaining. In Double-edged diplomacy. International bargaining and domestic politics, Hrsg. Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson und Robert D. Putnam, 3–42. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997a. Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization 51(4): 513–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997b. Warum die Europäische Union die Exekutive stärkt: Innenpolitik und internationale Kooperation. In Projekt Europa im Übergang? Probleme, Modelle und Strategien des Regierens in der Europäischen Union, Hrsg. Klaus Dieter Wolf, 211–269. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neack, Laura. 2019. Studying foreign policy comparatively: Cases and analyses, 4. Aufl. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oktay, Sibel, und Ryan Beasley. 2017. Quantitative approaches in coalition foreign policy: Scope, content, process. European Political Science 16(4): 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, Kai. 2008. Prinzipale und Agenten in Zwei-Ebenen-Spielen. Die innerstaatlichen Restriktionen der Europapolitik Großbritanniens unter Tony Blair. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, Kai. 2014. Delineating the scope conditions of the poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making: The noncompensatory principle and the domestic salience of foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 10(1): 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, Kai, und Klaus Brummer. 2014. Patterns of junior partner influence on the foreign policy of coalition governments. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16(4): 555–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, Kai, und Klaus Brummer. 2018. Veto player approaches in foreign policy analysis. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 2, 807–824. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, Kai, und Dagmar Röttsches. 2010. NGOs as catalysts for international arms control? The ratification of the chemical weapons convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the United States. Journal of International Relations and Development 13(3): 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, Benjamin I., und Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The rational public. Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, Susan. 1995. How democracies differ: Public opinion, state structure, and the lessons of the Fashoda crisis. Security Studies 5(1): 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, Jonathan J., und Katherine C. Hicks. 2019. Foreign policy applications of the advocacy coalition framework. In Foreign policy as public policy? Promises and pitfalls, Hrsg. Klaus Brummer, Sebastian Harnisch, Kai Oppermann, und Diana Panke, 65–90. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, Philip B. K., und Matthew A. Baum. 2014. Looking for audience costs in all the wrong places: Electoral institutions, media access, and democratic constraint. The Journal of Politics 76(1): 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, Brandon C., und Christopher Sprecher. 1999. Institutional constraints, political opposition, and interstate dispute escalation: Evidence from parliamentary systems, 1946–89. Journal of Peace Research 36(3): 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42(3): 427–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raunio, Tapio, und Wolfgang Wagner. 2020. The party politics of foreign and security policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 16(4): 515–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, Dan, und Erik R. Tillman. 2002. Public, Legislative, and Executive Constraints on the Democratic Initiation of Conflict. Journal of Politics 64(3): 810–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripsman, Norrin M. 2002. Peacemaking by democracies. The effect of state autonomy on the post-World War settlements. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripsman, Norrin M. 2009. Neoclassical realism and domestic interest groups. In Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy, Hrsg. Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman und Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, 170–193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ripsman, Norrin M., Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, und Steven E. Lobell. 2016. Neoclassical realist theory of international politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, Thomas. 2013. Transnational actors and world politics. In Handbook of international relations, Hrsg. Walter E. Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse und Beth A. Simmons, 2. Aufl., 426–452. London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1995. Bringing transnational relations back in: Introduction. In Bringing transnational relations back in: Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions, Hrsg. Thomas Risse-Kappen, 3–36. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Gideon. 1998. Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics 51(1): 144–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, Paul A., und Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, Mark, und Scott Crichlow. 2010. Groupthink versus high-quality decision making in international relations. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, Mark, und Stephen G. Walker, Hrsg. 2006. Beliefs and leadership in world politics. Methods and applications of operational code analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank. 1994. Internationale Sozialisation neuer Staaten: Heuristische Überlegungen zu einem Forschungsdesiderat. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(2): 335–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, Kenneth. 2013. Domestic politics and international relations. In Handbook of international relations, Hrsg. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse und Beth A. Simmons, 2. Aufl., 478–502. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, Randall L. 2004. Unanswered threats. A neoclassical realist theory of underbalancing. International Security 29(2): 159–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Models of man. Social and rational. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skonieczny, Amy. 2018. Corporate lobbying in foreign policy. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 1, 240–258. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steve. 1984. Groupthink and the Hostage Rescue Mission. British Journal of Political Science 15(1): 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steve. 1986. Theories of foreign policy: An historical overview. Review of International Studies 12(1): 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield, und Tim Dunne, Hrsg. 2016. Foreign policy. Theories, actors, cases, 3. Aufl. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Richard C., H. W. Bruck, und Burton Sapin. 1954. Decision-making as an approach to the study of international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprout, Harold, und Margaret Sprout. 1956. Man-Milieu relationship hypotheses in the context of international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. 2016. Neoliberalism. In International relations theories. Discipline and diversity, Hrsg. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki und Steve Smith, 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thies, Cameron G. 2012. International Socialization Processes vs. Israeli National Role Conceptions: Can role theory integrate IR theory and foreign policy analysis? Foreign Policy Analysis 8(1): 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies, Cameron G. 2013. The United States, Israel, and the search for international order: Socializing states. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thies, Cameron G., Hrsg. 2018. The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Wolfgang. 2018. Parliaments in foreign policy. In The Oxford encyclopedia of foreign policy analysis, Hrsg. Cameron Thies, Bd. 2, 343–356. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Wolfgang. 2020. The democratic politics of military interventions: Political parties, contestation, and decisions to use force abroad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Stephen G. 1992. Symbolic interactionism and international politics: Role theory’s contribution to international organization. In Contending dramas: A cognitive approach to international organizations, Hrsg. Martha Cottam und Chih-yu Shih, 19–38. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Stephen G. 2003. Operational code analysis as a scientific research program. A cautionary tale. In Progress in international relations theory. Appraising the field, Hrsg. Colin Elman und Miriam F. Elman, 245–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Jessica L. 2008. Autocratic audience costs: Regime type and signaling resolve. International Organization 62(1): 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Antje. 2008. The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wivel, Anders. 2005. Explaining why state X made a certain move last Tuesday: The promise and limitations of realist foreign policy analysis. Journal of International Relations and Development 8(4): 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, William C. 1995. Realism and the end of the Cold War. International Security 19(3): 91–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Deutschland

    Kai Oppermann

Authors
  1. Kai Oppermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Oppermann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Univ. d. Bundesw. München Sozialwissensch. Inst., Neubiberg, Deutschland

    Frank Sauer

  2. Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Bayern, Deutschland

    Luba von Hauff

  3. Universität der Bundeswehr München Fak. f. Staats- und Soz.wissenschaften, Neubiberg, Deutschland

    Carlo Masala

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Oppermann, K. (2022). Außenpolitikanalyse in den Internationalen Beziehungen. In: Sauer, F., von Hauff, L., Masala, C. (eds) Handbuch Internationale Beziehungen. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19954-2_18-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19954-2_18-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-19954-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-531-19954-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation