Search

It is argued that the US and the EU are conducting their foreign policies in very different ways, indeed Robert Kagan has suggested that they could be shaping two different world orders. This paper is interested in examining how far these apparently divergent conceptual approaches translate into clearly dissimilar policy practices. Beyond the much discussed US-EU positions on Iraq, does the EU have something qualitatively and quantitatively different to offer to the concept and practice of transnational governance? This paper analyses these issues through an investigation of the different elements of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership programme, to explore how far the EU is offering a new approach to transnational governance and how far it might be considered to be re-branding old approaches to north-south cooperation. The Euro-Mediterranean partnership offers a good practical example of what EU countries are doing at the regional level. Essentially, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership is an ambitious regional cooperation programme covering all aspects of the social, economic and political relations between the EU and the states of the southern shores of the Mediterranean. But what does the partnership imply in practice? Can the various programmes that the EU proposes to implement ensure economic development, manage social tensions and strengthen political and security institutions in a way that is beneficial for both parties, and for citizens as well as for states? Conceptually, there are obvious tensions between the strategic aims of EU engagement with Mediterranean partners. On the one hand the EU is attempting to strengthen existing illiberal state institutions in North African and Middle Eastern countries, in order to gain more effective cooperation with the EU on emigration control and anti-terrorist policies. On the other hand it is keen to promote power-sharing and good governance in countries which are essentially run on a non-democratic basis. In practice it is not at all certain that even if these conceptual difficulties can be solved, the various national and sub- or supra-national institutions involved in this programme can address the momentous technical challenges of multi-layered transnational governance that are intrinsic to this type of endeavour. Hence, this paper investigates how far this alleged partnership embodies new and effectives means of trans-national governance, and how far it merely repackages old realist principles and tools of north-south cooption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of US nuclear strategy offers an interesting case study of idea influence: while the dominant historical narrative is filled with accounts of the enormous effect civilian strategists and their ideas had on US policies, critics note that actual correlation between expert ideas and expert ideas is sporadic at best. The present paper analyzes the influence of expert ideas on Cold War US nuclear strategy during the debate on counterforce in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It answers the question why the highly rational language of civilian strategist came to dominate the deterrence policy discourse for the better part of the Cold War. Contrary to existing theoretical accounts of idea influence, the paper conceptualizes influence as discursive: ideas are influential when they monopolize the language of the policy discourse, thereby acting as constraints on the beliefs and perceptions of key actors. In order to avoid the pitfalls of previous rational and reflectivist approaches, the selection of ideas for policy use is explained through the concept of persuasiveness. Persuasive ideas are not merely intellectually compelling, but also fit with existing policy problems, ideas, and the general policy environment. Thus, persuasiveness is able to explain strategic use, as well as discursive dominance and subsequent institutionalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes to what extent existing public policy (the status quo) set the scope for international negotiation mandates in the case of the United States in the climate change negotiations. To that effect, the analysis explores whether the political dynamics between the actors and institutions that can change the status quo through collective action can help explain the U.S. position and mandate in the negotiations over time. Agenda setting and agenda control in the legislative process are found to be essential mechanisms for changing public policy, and the paper offers a comparative analysis of the consequences domestic agenda setting and agenda control had for U.S. participation in international climate talks in the period 1993-2008. The political institutions of the United States structured interaction among policymakers and affected policy outcome, and ultimately the chance of changing the policy status quo. To exemplify this, the paper provides a systematic comparison of Senate votes in the period 1993-2008 - votes related to greenhouse gas emissions reductions and efforts to limit the use of fossil fuels. Logistic regression analysis as well as qualitative methods are used to analyze the impact of political institutions and public policy on U.S. engagement in the international climate negotiations over time. The analysis is useful for future international negotiations, because it points out where the potential for change and influence is in the United States, a key actor in the climate negotiations; in party politics or interest group politics. An international treaty that would be ratified in the United States must accommodate these interests. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The central question of this paper is whether and how the new EU chemicals Regulation REACH could play a role in international chemicals governance. The REACH Regulation is one of the largest and most controversial pieces of legislation that the EU has ever adopted. It introduces a comprehensive and ambitious system for chemicals management, which moves away from a hazard-based approach to a risk-based approach. The introduction of an element of increased responsibility for private actors to provide information about specific properties of chemicals, to ensure that this information is used to assess possible risks and to ensure that the risks are appropriately managed are expected to lead to more anticipatory approach to chemicals management. Moreover, the application of the same registration, evaluation and authorisation requirements for all, existing and new, chemicals and the substitution obligation where possible, are expected to provide incentives for increased innovation activities.This paper first introduces the main features of the REACH Regulation. Then it describes the international system of chemicals governance before discussing the contribution that REACH could make to this system. In the subsequent section, the different ways in which REACH requirements could diffuse to other jurisdictions and benefit international governance are analysed. These conceptual considerations are then applied to the US and California in a brief discussion of first signs of the potential influence of REACH. Since the REACH Regulation only entered into force on 1 June 2007 and will only be fully implemented by 2016, the full international impact of REACH will only become clear at a future point in time. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to understand and empirically analyse the neo-conservative project and its influence on US foreign policy and its 'new imperial' turn. The nature, evolution, and long-term implications of the post-9/11 shift in US foreign policy are addressed from a perspective stressing the interplay between structure and agency, and, crucially, incorporating an ideological dimension. With the help of Social Network Analysis a neo-conservative (two-mode) network is identified starting from affiliation with the neo-conservative advocacy group Project for A New American Century. On the basis of both qualitative and quantitative (yet relational) data it is analysed how this multileveled network, spanning the private institutional, governmental, and corporate/financial level, has influenced US post-9/11 foreign policy, with a focus on grand strategy and the global 'War on Terror'. Taking a transnational political economy perspective as a point of departure it is analysed to what extent this neo-conservative project can interpreted as a 'hegemonic project' understood as containing: a political formula and a geopolitical strategy and how this is related to the reigning (neoliberal) accumulation strategy. In this respect it is also explored to what extent and how the neo-conservative project can be related to the neo-liberal project and how it differs from, or implies a transformation of the neoliberal project. The paper ends with a theoretical reflection on how to interpret the empirical findings with respect to some key questions concerning the the dialectical relationship between the interstate system on the one hand and global capitalism on the other. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly it seeks to address the burgeoning literature developing on discourse analysis within the discipline of IR (Doty, 1996, Larsen, 1997, 1999, Milliken 1999, Fierke 1998, Campbell 1998, Hansen 2006). In particular, I turn to the relevance of this approach for conceptualising traditional agent-structure and self-other relations as dialectical. Theorising the relationship between identity and recognition will thus become imperative throughout the paper. Taking these finding as a starting point, the second section moves to outline patterns of continuity and change systematically introduced into the Bush administration’s foreign policy discourse since September 2001. Essentially I maintain that the democratic language constructed therein has created a legitimacy crisis for the US by exposing a glaring gap between its words and deeds. Using discourse analysis as a tool, the analysis offers an alternative angle from which to explain and understand the tension created by such inconsistencies. Harnessing this approach, moreover, provides a lens to observe how these variations have opened up the space for alternative interpretations of current US foreign policy objectives. In sum, I seek to illustrate how the concept of democracy has changed from a widely accepted term into a paradox that the Bush administration has had to defend within its ambitious foreign policy goals. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the field of International Political Economy, there is a focus on the role of tariffs and tariff structures in international trade. Within this literature, there is an emerging analysis of international trade disputes, and their role as a form of foreign economic policy. This study addresses tariff policy, the role of operational code in Presidential decision making, and the foreign economic policy of the United States. The main focus is why Presidents initiate NAFTA trade disputes, yet have such a poor success rate. The main argument of this study is that the poor record of presidential dispute initiation is the result of the Executive Branch trying to please two opposing constituencies simultaneously: free traders and economic protectionists. In addition, I argue that the degree to which they pursue such strategies, however, is a function of the belief systems of individual Presidents. Using statistical modeling analysis, this paper shows that Presidents react to changes in the electoral cycle by initiating trade disputes with NAFTA partners. How they do this, I argue, is a function of two factors: the need for electoral support, and their internal beliefs, as expressed in their outlook towards free-trade liberalism. This paper will use operational code analysis to measure the belief systems of Presidents during this period to explain differing levels of commitment to free-trade liberalism among presidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has faced the challenge of identifying its foreign policy priorities within the context of a new international environment. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the simultaneous strengthening of suicidal terrorist groups, containment and mutual assured destruction have slowly lost their applicability, and as a result, the last two administrations have attempted to redefine the purposes and efficacy of American power. While the Clinton administration adopted a mix of strategies -- selective engagement and cooperative security -- which culminated in the publication of the National Security Strategy for a New Century (1998), the Bush administration appears to have opted for the so-called primacy approach, illustrated by the National Security Strategy (2002). This paper examines the extent to which these two documents are in fact different with respect to both their rhetoric and their policy outcomes. Some claim that Bush´s national security document is much more aggressive than Clinton´s in the sense that it shifted US military strategy toward pre-emptive action, it is more dismissive of multilateralism, and it overemphasized the privileged position of the US as the world´s hegemon. Others claim that the newer document presents nothing new. We argue that the veracity of these propositions cannot be determined a priori; rather the answer depends on the object of analysis. On the one hand, if we consider policy outcomes, the assertion of major changes between Clinton´s and Bush´s strategic plans seems to be an overstatement. On the other hand, if we are limited to the evaluation of the rhetoric of the two documents, then it is clear that there has been a significant departure in parlance between the two administrations. A careful content analysis of Clinton´s National Secuirty Strategy for a New Century and Bush´s National Security Strategy, coupled with a brief overview of the principal foreign policy outcomes during the two administrations, lend support to such an argument. Understanding the continuities and/or discontinuities of post-Cold War foreign policy can shed light on the inconsistencies and pitfalls of an ineffective national security program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In September 2006 the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations announced the establishment of a multi-sectoral partnership designed to advance small-scale agriculture in African countries. The partnership represented a move beyond the health sector, which has recently attracted the largest proportion of foundation funds, toward agricultural development, a sector with a rich (and controversial) history of private philanthropic intervention in international affairs. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Agriculture (AGRA) offers an interesting case study, in that it purports to challenge top-down interventions and is expressly designed to nurture community and private sector capacity. It does so within a policy paradigm - the multi-sectoral partnership - increasingly popular among development policy makers, particularly in international organisations (IOs). Using the AGRA as a case study the objective of this paper is to deepen understanding of the influence of private foundations. It has two aims. The first is to historically trace the influence of foundations in agricultural development and uncover how two US foundations, Rockefeller and Ford, used their endowments to partially guide agricultural development in the post-war era during a period of growing internationalisation and deepening interdependence. The second is to compare this to the Rockefeller and Gates intervention through the AGRA. It finds evidence that the more widely acknowledged historical influence of foundations has carried over in the contemporary system of global governance. But that there has been a tacit shift from a focus on a distinctly modernist, Rostowian approach to development, to one that blends markets with local enterprise development, public with private sector approaches and appropriates the participatory discourses that have become fashionable in development policy circles over the past decade or so. The international and global epochs of foundations, however, are united by a continuing propensity to favour technical interventions among foundations with an interest in the science and technology dimensions of development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the rapidly growing interest in and development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in the United States. Although public awareness about CCS technology remains limited, the technology has emerged as a critical component of ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pursuit of greater security in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has sharpened the debate in the United States about policy issues related to the southwest border. Matters of trade, immigration and physical security collide as never before with transnational threats to security continuing to pose significant challenges to policymakers on both sides of the border. Even as the United States is making substantial investments in a Secure Border Initiative, public opinion is conflicted on immigration reform and the imperative for facilitated trade is powerful. These dynamics raise a host of questions about what the term “secure border” means now and can mean in the future. This paper explores the current state of governance along the U.S./Mexico border and considers the factors that will influence the future state of border control on the Southwest Border. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper "American Vincibility in the Aftermath of the War in Iraq: Future Challenges in the Domestic and Foreign Policy Arenas" presented at the "46th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association" in Honolulu, Hawaii. It examines the impact of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq invasion on the political and economic terms of the U.S. It emphasizes that the present U.S. policies are insufficiently advancing the interests of the country in the era of globalization and national vulnerability.

This paper examines when the American public supports the use of force abroad and under what conditions it opposes it. While the President attempts to define the objective of his policy to the public, other political actors may challenge this definition by offering an alternative "framing" of it. This process of public contestation is captured in mainstream media coverage and has a decisive impact on public support or opposition to the policy. I elaborate a theory of how the framing of policy objectives influences public opinion. I hypothesize that the public will support the use of force abroad when the President's framing of the policy as foreign policy restraint (FPR) of an aggressive adversary is unchallenged. Conversely, when the President's framing of the policy as FPR is contested in public discourse by a counter-frame, which portrays the policy as being about internal political change, support for the use of force abroad will decline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the conference paper "If You Want a World Championship Team, Hire World Championship Players.... National Security Professionals for the New Millenium" prepared for the "2005 International Studies Association Conference." It discusses the development of career civil servants that deal with issues on policies in the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), U.S. State Department and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It examines the changes needed in the current personnel management systems and development programs.

The article presents a conference paper titled "Presidential Domain: A Prospect Theory Analysis of U.S. Climate Policies Under Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush" prepared for presentation at the "2005 Annual Conference of the International Studies Association" in Honolulu, Hawaii. It looks at the history of the decision of U.S. President George W. Bush to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and the policy change between the two administrations.

Study will determine the external and internal influences on the Eisenhower adminstration in its making of U.S. policy toward Tibet. Using the Kegley-Wittkopf model, research will focus on foreign influence from external sources such as China, India, Taiwan and the Tibetans themselves. Internally, the study will determine which governmental, societal, role and individual sources influenced Eisenhower in determining policy outcomes. It is hoped that the study will further illuminate U.S. foreign policy deliberations and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States was an early advocate of including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading in the Kyoto Protocol. American officials pointed to the success of the domestic sulfur trading program in the United States and argued that emissions trading provided an efficient mechanism to reduce emissions in a cost-effective manner. The United States attempted to frame the issue as one of efficiency. It does not matter where greenhouse gases are emitted. They have the same effect on climate change. Therefore, it does not matter where emission reductions are achieved. American negotiators argued that the marginal cost of reducing GHG emissions in other countries were much lower than reducing emissions in the United States. It would thus be more cost effective to purchase emission reductions achieved in other countries. The European Union and environmental NGOs attacked the trading initiative as an attempt by the United States and its supporters to avoid their responsibilities to reduce domestic emissions. They framed the issue as one of national responsibility and equity. All developed countries should rely primarily on domestic initiatives to reduce GHG emissions. The way the issue was framed made it difficult for several EU member states to openly support the emissions trading initiative ? despite their need to utilize emissions trading to meet their individual emission reduction commitments. However, the European Union has become much more supportive of emissions trading and is actively working to develop a viable trading mechanism. The evolution of the EU’s position provides an interesting case study to explore the relative value of the Constructivist literature’s emphasis on social interaction, persuasion, and learning on the framing of emerging problems and the definition of national preferences versus a materialist focus on the costs and benefits of policy options. To what extent did the framing of the problem constrain the policy preferences of EU member states? Does the evolution of the EU’s position primarily reflect a process of persuasion and learning, or does it indicate a shift in the understanding of the costs and benefits of meeting the Kyoto commitments? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The shift of US strategy toward China from Clinton’s strategic partner to Bush’s strategic competitor has had negative impacts on relations between the two nations. Since George Bush took office, America’s diplomacy has transformed from multilateralism to unilateralism. US image has further transformed from benign to predatory hegemony after conducting the war against Iraq without consulting the UN Security Council. The change is significant because it increases the discontents, globally in general and Asia in particular. The article explains why China is one of the most dangerous discontents based on the Power Transition Theory. The theory is chosen because it has an established empirical record when applied to past periods of war and peace, and because the elements required for long-term forecasts can be roughly approximated (Kugler, Tammen, and Swaminathan, 2001, p.2). Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the friction between Washington and Beijing has increased because United States has become as the sole superpower on the one hand, and China has emerged as a regional power on the other. It is consistent with power transition theory: conflict occurred because of the divergent views on status quo between the global and regional hegemonies. One of power transition theory’s hypotheses is that great powers are most likely to wage the war for control of the international status quo when a power transition occurs between the dominant state and a discontent challenger. Lemke’s empirical study (2002) finds the theory is generalizable to regional interactions, and thus relative power and the status quo do not constrain behavior only among the very strongest of states. China has dissatisfied with the status quo for two reasons, as Lemke suggested. First, it had little or no say in the construction of the existing status quo and enjoyed no direct or indirect benefits from it. Second, it employs different domestic institutions for the allocation of values in its society from those used by the dominant power. Because Lemke finds strong statistical relationships between parity, dissatisfaction, and war within local hierarchies, China’s discontent becomes significant. Worse, US war on terrorism further raise the specter of unconstrained American interventionism abroad and enhanced American domination of the international system in ways that Beijing feared could have grave long-term implications for China itself (Miller, 2002). Beijing sees China’s security threatened both in terms of the precedents it sets and in terms of the expansion of the American military and political presence around China’s periphery. Given the size of China’s stake in a stable bilateral relationship the United States, Beijing was naturally not convinced by the so-called Bush Doctrine. Clear evidence showed that China’s commitment to the status quo is declining. Politically, in addition to refuse to renounce the use of force, Beijing’s irrational rejection to Taipei’s entry to WHO exemplifies China’s discontent with US supports for Taiwan. Beijing’s enthusiasm about establishment of a free trade area between China and ASEAN is a clear sign of dissatisfying with global economic status quo. Deploying more missiles along the Taiwan Strait shows Beijing discontent with Washington’s continued arms sales to Taipei. The more America insists on constructing a unipolar world, the more resistance it is likely to generate, from China and others(Harry Harding, 2003). Thus, there are at least three implications for American diplomacy. First, Washington can accommodate Beijing by sharing with China opportunities for setting international agenda. Second, do not despise China’s role on the Korean Peninsula. For Beijing, it is unacceptable if America to extend the same logic in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq to justify intervening in North Korea. Third, Washington should not push Taipei too hard because Taiwan may eventually find its interest better served by switching its diplomacy from leaning only on Washington to keeping equal distance from China and the United States. Thus, for Washington, it will be a better way to stabilize the relation across the Taiwan Strait by helping establish the Confidence-Building Measures (CBM). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper asks: How does the evolution of public diplomacy in the United States inform our thinking about public diplomacy’s future? The paper analyzes the history of American public diplomacy in an effort to identify key factors that influenced public d ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the interplay between Turkey's domestic dynamics and its foreign policy towards the Middle East by identifying the main themes formulated by the Islamist Justice and Development Party (JDP) government, which came to power in November 2002, and analyses its implications on Turkey’s role in the region. It argues that Turkey’s increased involvement in the Middle Eastern problems points to a diversion from the traditional aloof standing towards the Middle East. It further maintains that the change in the Turkish foreign policy has not only been without the consent and desire of the main political forces at home, but also against opposition by the major actors in the region. Finally, the paper argues that the way Turkey’s policy was conducted in the region has alienated both the Arab states and the U.S. -once regarded as a strategic ally-, therefore shall be counterproductive in terms of Turkey's regional interests. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the following question: can a policy of engagement help transform nationalist terrorist organizations (NTOs) into legitimate political parties, or will it encourage further violence? Today, for instance, the Bush administration has decided that engagement would only strengthen and embolden Hamas, and consequently has chosen to isolate the Palestinian organization in an effort to force it out of office. Though hard-line strategies often seem an appropriate response to NTOs, it is nevertheless important to understand why engagement is sometimes chosen, whether or not it can succeed, and if so, under what conditions this can occur. Building upon my dissertation, this paper will attempt to determine when the U.S. should engage an NTO by examining the effects of engagement on Sinn Fein and the Palestine Liberation Organization. In the former instance, a long-term policy of conditional engagement contributed to bringing peace to Northern Ireland; in the latter case, significant American engagement only led to renewed and increasingly violent conflict. Extant studies of this subject have two major failings: first, they do not provide a generalizable explanation and second, they overlook the role that third parties can play in convincing an NTO to permanently disarm. I argue that engagement is likely to convince an NTO to disarm and enter a political system if three conditions hold. First, the NTO must be in deep decline. Second, the U.S. must implement a policy of incremental and conditional engagement, and third the U.S. must act as a fair mediator. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines recent efforts by the United States to leverage its communication resources towards a more effective public diplomacy campaign. The paper examines three specific areas characterizing contemporary U.S. public diplomacy interests, including attempts to incorporate business organizations into U.S public diplomacy, the growth of military "strategic communications" operations, and the turn to online venues for international outreach. Each of these subjects are critically assessed as rhetorical moves to shape foreign perception of the motives, character, and context surrounding the discourse of U.S. foreign policy objectives. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines public and elite attitudes toward security policy in Japan. While focusing on the US-Japan security alliance, Japan's relations with East Asian countries, and Japan's role in the United Nations, the paper addresses three questions: (1) How have public and elite views evolved since the 1990s?; (2) what is the relationship between mass and elite opinion?; and (3) how do mass and elite opinion relate to security policy? The paper argues that a particular group within the security elite has shaped national security policy and that the public has generally followed that group’s leadership. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question this paper addresses is whether and, if so, to what extent can existing IR theories of high politics decision making be applied to low politics issue areas, specifically international environmental policy. The paper considers three individual level theories: Prospect Theory, Political and Policy Risk Theory and Poliheuristic Theory. Each is applied to two case studies, The Montreal Protocol and The Kyoto Protocol, to test its ability to explain the decision-making processes of United States presidents. The climate change case study is most illustrative, either for or against the applicability of a theory, as the risks presidents faced were greater. The paper concludes that none of the applications lend full support to any of the theories. At the same time, none of them completely invalidate the theories either. Of the three, Political and Policy Risk Theory shows the most promise, while the analysis of Prospect Theory reveals some weaknesses in its applicability and the results of the application of Poliheuristic Theory fall somewhere in between. The findings suggest that foreign policy analysis theories may be best able to explain international environmental policy choices if they can capture the complexity of the issue, better define risk and allow for more human agency in terms of personal preferences and belief systems. In general, the applications to environmental policy suggest that the three theories could be adjusted or amended to become better generalizable to different policy areas. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic theories of political activities often develop from empirical investigation of government policies. Nevertheless, there is a recursion to this process. Government policies develop from academic theories of political activities. Certain theories gain prevalence within the policy making community and drive policy prescriptions. For example, modernization theory of the 1960s, which suggested a process and pattern for development in poor countries, became the template for U.S. government policy in developmental aid. The strength and the acceptance of the theory within academia mirrored the strength and acceptance of the modernization policy prescription with policy practitioners. The theory guided the policy. Like modernization theory before it, democratic peace research has achieved a guiding policy position with U.S. foreign policy practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of academic democratic peace research and the corresponding acceptance of the idea that democracies are peaceful with other democracies by U.S. foreign policy makers. This paper does not argue that U.S. foreign policy has become completely consistent in its support and promotion of democracy. As Jack Snyder (2004, 54) argues, when intellectual ideas ?enter the policymaking arena and public debate, they sometimes become intellectual window dressing for simplistic worldviews.? Nevertheless, the democratic peace has entered the policymaking arena. The evidence suggests that as the democratic peace gains stronger acceptance in academia it becomes more influential among policy makers. It is not hyperbole to claim that the foundation of current U.S. foreign policy is a version, simplified as it may be, of the democratic peace. This study begins with a discussion of the academic development of the democratic peace. Michael Doyle?s work on the democratic peace in 1983 is a pivotal point in the debate. Next, I underscore the democratic peace ideas in President Reagan?s foreign policy. The analysis continues through President Clinton and to the current Bush administration ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sovereignty, Border-Making, and Belonging: Immigration Policy in the United StatesIn this paper, I propose to examine the relations between sovereignty, border making and belonging in the context of on going debates about immigration policy in the United States. This paper will be organized around the core concepts of sovereignty, border making and belonging. I conceptualize sovereignty not as an ontological given of international relations, but as an effect of various political practices. As such, sovereignty needs to be performed and reiterated on a daily basis. One important venue for the performance of sovereignty is border making. There are two kinds of borders that merit attention: the geographical boundaries of the nation state and internal borders, which include distinctions between different social classes and ethnicities, between public and private spheres, and the between the different bodies and genders. These internal borders hold different social spaces and categories of people apart and, in doing so, they also lend to polities their particular modes of coherence. Internal borders are also steeped in different conceptions of belonging such as citizenship, national identity, and ethnic affiliation. These understandings of belonging form the cultural contexts in which borders, both internal and external, are constructed and contested. Immigration policy, the substantive focus on this paper, can be understood as a performance of sovereignty directed towards reshaping of the US?s geographical frontiers and its internal borders. This performance of sovereignty is both shaped and constrained by cultural understandings of belonging. The phenomena that I want to consider here ? sovereignty, borders, and belonging ? are all highly diffuse in character: they manifest themselves in countless different settings. I propose to link national debates on immigration policy to the perspectives of key actors ? police, immigration advocates, leading employers and migrants ? in Southwest Florida. The particular regional focus of this paper is, at one level, a matter of convenience ? this is where I live and teach. At another level, it is a matter of indifference ? for since the 1990s, virtually all regions of the US have been permeated by heavy influxes of migrants, both legal and illegal, and so everywhere the resurgence of policy debates on immigration has put into play borders, belonging and sovereignty. My conclusions will be necessarily partial in character: they will provide a local illustration of processes that are, in fact, transnational in scope. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a draft of a chapter that will be included in the forthcoming edited volume entitled, "The Social Construction of Climate Change." The chapters in the volume present a number of potentially fruitful avenues for analyzing the "social construction of climate change." This paper focuses on the early framing of climate change as a political problem at the international level and the associated normative debates that emerged related to how states should respond to the threat. It then evaluates how the international framing of the problem and the normative debates were translated into the domestic political processes of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The early domestic framing of the problem had profound effects on the political debates in all three countries and played a major role in shaping the degree to which emergent international norms were translated into the domestic policy debates. The paper seeks to explain how and why the political framing of climate change evolved at the international and domestic political levels and explores the consequences of these changes for climate policy in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of 9/11 most of the academic attention in International Relations has focused on looking at the situation in the Middle East. The importance and relevance of the security situation in the Western Hemisphere has been overlooked. This paper aims to highlight the strategic importance of Colombia in the U.S. war on terror. Border security and the finance of terrorist operations through the narcotics trade are just two of the many issues that make Colombia of capital importance to the US war on terror. The paper will illustrate the many points of relevance by looking at the latest developments of the bilateral relationship. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine the use of "democratization" as an instrument of foreign policy. Is democracy in an authoritarian regime possible when imposed from the outside? Analyzing two U.S. Administrations, this paper will look at the different methods used to encourage,or impose,democracy upon nations with no democratic tradition. United States President Bill Clinton fostered a policy of "enlargement", and President George W. Bush has attempted to impose democracy using miltiary force. The success or failure of their policies will be discussed. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues for striking continuities between the Clinton and Bush administrations in the ways each administration defined ?terrorism? and in the importance they attached to "bioterrorism" in particular as a threat to national security. This paper will examine how this strong focus on bioterrorism developed, including the influences on both administrations; how, in accepting this focus, each administration dismissed skepticism concerning the feasibility of use of biological weapons; and the policies each administration adopted to address what both saw as a serious threat to civilians. Finally, this paper examines the implications of each administration?s response for U.S. relations with ?Southern? states. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trans-Atlantic relations are important in many areas of international environmental politics. Studies show that the status of these relations can both facilitate and hinder effective policy making and implementation. This paper examines trans-Atlantic relations on international chemicals management. The paper shows how EU and U.S. led policy developments on chemicals over the past decade have led to the creation of several multilateral treaties and organizations, as well as the expansion of existing programs. While they share a basic concern over hazardous chemicals, however, the European Union and the United States often disagree over specific regulatory issues and approaches. There are moreover signs that ongoing European efforts to expand Community chemicals assessment and regulation are resulting in growing EU-U.S. controversy over the future direction of chemicals management. Specifically, the EU and the U.S. disagree on regulatory, financial and market based issues relating to chemicals and their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will examine public opinion and the war on terrorism. It will examine trends in public opinion at six month intervals as well as report finding of an in-depth analysis of views of residents of Portland, ME concerning the relationship between liberty and security inherent in anti-terrorist policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the tension between the social and the biological in the determination of ‘family status’ within Canadian and U.S. immigration policy. “The family’ is presumed to be both natural and ‘pre-political’ in much academic scholarship and pub ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper applies the paradigm of bureaucratic politics on German and U.S. democracy promotion towards Ukraine. It characterizes German and U.S. bureaucracy as fundamentally different and traces these different logics of bureaucratic interaction in democracy promotion. While the U.S. has used its effectively coordinated foreign policy and foreign aid bureaucracy to streamline its democracy promotion strategy in Ukraine, Germany has not even explicitly set an overall strategy. This has resulted in different approaches: The United States focused on a window of opportunity, the 2004 presidential elections, and re-allocated funding towards electoral programs. German institutions, on the other hand, followed a long-term approach of dialogue and mutual understanding, providing the same amount of funding and implementing similar programs for over nearly a decade. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will address the following provocative puzzle: Why has China chosen to assure Southeast Asian countries during the past decade? Will China adhere to this assurance strategy in the coming decade? The author develops a dual pressure model to explain China’s assurance policy. This dual pressure model maintains that U.S. dominance and China’s domestic priorities have combined to compel China to assure its Southeast Asian neighbors. In the shadow of U.S. dominance, a rising China has no other choice but to assure its neighbors to alleviate strategic pressures against it. The assurance policy not only sends benign signals to the U.S., but also neutralizes China’s neighbors in the case of U.S. containment of China. At the domestic level, China’s top priorities lie in preventing Taiwan’s declaration of de jure independence and in maintaining social stability in the process of social transformation. These tremendous tasks require the cooperation of China’s neighbors. Therefore, it is in line with China’s interests to follow a policy of good-neighborliness and friendship. Based on the dual pressure model, the author is confident in predicting that China will continue to assure its Southeast Asian neighbors to foster an amicable, peaceful and prosperous neighborhood in the coming decade. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the challenges of the new security policies formulated by the U.S. in the last 5 years and how they are creating a new model of relationship with Mexico. The security framework is creating a new set of regulations from Mexican policy makers and from local and regional agencies that may not be prepared to face them. The author also explores the relative weight that trade and economics play on this new model. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The president who succeeds George W. Bush in office will face several challenges, not least of which will be the attempt to reestablish American credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness among many governments and populations around the world. This paper argues that while a new president can overcome a certain degree of resistence to US policy by virtue of a personnel change alone, this will not be sufficient to fully repair strained relations, and to reestablish an American global role that resembles the pre-9/11 world. First of all, while the US can change its policies, it cannot control the effects of past policies. In addition, developments such as 1) political and leadership changes in France, Britain and other EU countries; and 2) the impacts of Chinese and Indian economic growth, as well as the more globally engaged diplomacy of these countries, have produced changes in the international system that cannot be changed by a new American president and new American policy priorities. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I will examine three different strategies of immigrant immigration in France, Britain and the United States. I will first argue that each country has developed a different form of multicultural strategy, and for each the implicit or explicit objective has been a different form of integration. In each case, the strategy has involved a form of ethnic recognition in public policy, a recognition that has not always been consistent with overall public philosophies. I will also argue that both strategies and objectives of integration have changed over time. Changes can be seen most clearly in the statements of public officials, on one level, and by the evolution of public policy on another. I will argue that these changes can be understood largely in terms of concerns about public order. Finally, I will look at questions of success and failure of integration. How can we understand success, and what constitutes failure? How do political actors understand these questions? How have success and failure been politicized, and why are some “failures” a measure of “success”? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water has emerged as a critical challenge of environmental protection and human security for the twenty-first century. Water has also been the subject of multi-dimensional international governance initiatives during the past decade: a UN framework convention on cooperative institution building in shared river basins; development assistance initiatives, including but not limited to the Millennium Development Goals; the ongoing struggle over water privatization and water neoliberalism; advocacy networking and a multi-stakeholder dialogue process on large dams; and the international movement to recognize water as a human right. This paper examines the role of the United States in each of these emergent institution-building processes. Several themes are emphasized, including the fragmented nature of US foreign water policy; the systematic tilt in US policy toward framing water as a market commodity rather than as a human right; the late arrival of US NGOs to several domains within global water politics; and some notable gaps between US policies and evolving international concepts of best practice. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The regulatory structures underlying US and EU policies regarding genetically modified (GM) food and crops are fundamentally different. The US regulates GM foods and crops as end products, applying the same regulatory framework that it would to non GM foods or crops. The EU, on the other hand, regulates agricultural biotechnology products as the result of a specific production process and has developed a wide network of rules that regulate GM foods and crops specifically. This key difference is reflected in distinct procedures for the authorization of field trials and commercialization. The result is a relatively permissive US regulation of GM foods, and a relatively restrictive regulation in the EU. In the light of these noteworthy differences, this contribution poses the following research question: Why are genetically modified food policies in the United States and the European Union different?Drawing on policy process theory, comparative historical analysis, and science and technology studies, this paper contends that differences between genetically modified food policies in the US and the EU can be explained by three main elements. First, US and EU policies regarding recombinant DNA research in the 1970s and 1980s, and events leading up to early GM food and crop regulation allow a deeper understanding of how current policy was able to develop ("preceding policies"). Second, underlying beliefs and values condition the content of current GM food and crop policy ("paradigms"). Third, actors for and against agricultural biotechnology have achieved different levels of success in influencing GM food policies in the US and the EU ("actors and actor coalitions"). These three explanatory variables are further influenced by context factors such as the political system, public opinion, and "shock events". ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My study examines the effects that scientific communities and domestic industry have had on US chemical and biological weapons policy in the period of 1965 to 2006, and in particular the successful ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997, and the US rejection of the proposed verification protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2001. My paper contends that although scientists once exerted considerable influence over US chemical weapons policy, since the 1980s that influence has diminished. It also concludes that even though the microbiology community had a significant impact on US biological weapons policy in the 1960s, the biotech revolution split the microbiology community into two competing factions, and decreased the influence of scientists who continued to lobby for arms control. Furthermore, this study finds that although the pharmaceutical and biotech industry is frequently blamed for the failure of the BWC verification protocol, in reality it played a minor role in this decision. However, concerted efforts in support of chemical disarmament on the part of the US chemical industry made a tremendous contribution towards the success of the CWC. Several of this study?s findings have implications for International Relations theories that examine how and why arms control regimes emerge, in particular the epistemic communities and Military-Industrial Complex literatures. Consistent with Matthew Evangelista?s analysis of the effects of international epistemic communities on Soviet nuclear policy, my study demonstrates that scientists are most influential when they develop personal relationships with high-ranking policymakers or the President. Perhaps this study?s most important finding is that although corporations are invariably assumed to be motivated solely by their own financial interests, on rare occasions industry can pursue more enlightened ends. Thus, my study opens a door for scholars to think of corporate interests as politically interesting in ways not reducible to assumptions of profit maximization. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper wishes to explore how the discursive formations that emanate from the contestation over a country?s secular morality and economic restructuring, via the medium of religious beliefs, affect that country?s foreign policy. In particular, I look at the domestic debates within the United States that evolved around the liberal ethos, different economic variants of republicanism, and labor relations, as these were mediated through the prism of liberal Protestant theology in the post WWII era. I argue that we can better explain the creation of the Cold War consensus in the U.S. if we understood the country?s military strategies abroad as an extension of the nationally contested truths at home. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NATO is facing a major turning point in its long-standing nuclear deterrent policy in the coming decade. The European member states holding a nuclear delivery mission today must decide whether to replace their aging dual-capable fleets with nuclear-capable replacement aircraft. In addition, the United States, which supplies the warheads for potential use by NATO nations, is facing internal bureaucratic pressures from its military services which no longer care for that responsibility. As a result, these factors point to a non-nuclear future for the Alliance within 15 years. What are NATO's options given these pressures? This paper, which was originally written while the author served as the 2005-2006 Manfred Woerner Fellow for the Alliance, presents and analyzes those alternatives. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the interest in rogue states increased in the American foreign policymaking community (NSS 1999, 2001, 2006) and among political scientists (Caprioli and Trumbore 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, Litwak 2000, Klare 1995, Hoyt 1999, O'Sullivan 2000) alike. Despite this predominance of the concept in foreign policymaking and its increased role in problem-oriented international relations research, no consensus exists on its core question: what is the function and accuracy of the rogue state label in the making of American foreign policy? The purpose of this paper is to attempt, though an alternate theoretical framework and methodology, to determine the nature and function of the rogue state label in American foreign policymaking. It addresses the dominant literature (Klare 1995, Litwak 2000, Caprioli and Trumbore 2005), extends a constructivist hypothesis, and offers an empirical test. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivist readings of the ?culture? of national security have done much to account for national variations in military strategy. However, such accounts tend to focus on the norms themselves, rather than the particular conditions of norm creation, or their actual institutionalisation. Drawing on contemporary approaches to state theory, The paper will examine the development of the US ?national security state? in the post-World War II period as means to looking at these broader concerns. The centralising tendency of improved civil-military coordination may not have amounted to a ?garrison state?, as some have argued, but it certainly did go against prevalent anti-statist tendencies within US political culture. The institutionalisation of the national security state, therefore, was an important moment in postwar state identity formation. The institutionalisation of the national security state, by its very success, also led to the durability of both its formal and informal manifestations within the US government, as a form of reproduction of institutions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While similar descriptive terminology has been used in recent years for the EU and the US, scholars tend to assume that in terms of institutional shape the US is generally more hierarchical and centralized than the EU and in terms of market integration the former is more of a single free market than the latter in the sense of fewer allowable trade restraints. This is most obviously reflected in the fact that the United States is always explicitly or implicitly compared to other unitary states, such as France and the United Kingdom, while the European Union's usual comparators are other international organizations. More importantly, while scholars won't quite call the EU a "state", no one is arguing that we should question the label of "state" for the US.This paper will show, however, that in terms of regulations for public procurement and services, the European Union has gone further than the United States in centralizing authority and eliminating interstate barriers to the movement of services and goods. This raises a number of long-term questions about how homogenized and centralized the US market and polity are relative to Europe, why the attribution of policy sectors to different levels of governance vary across multi-level governance entities and why multi-level governance entities pursue different trajectories with regard to the adjudication of authority to the sub-level versus the central or federal level of authority. These questions become especially significant when considering that while we have coherent explanations for market integration and centralization/institutional outcomes, they tend to focus exclusively on one or the other of the two federal polities. Yet, when the respective logics of these explanations are employed to the two polities, they appear to be insufficient at best, leaving us to wonder why the EU went beyond the US in integrating and centralizing these policy arenas. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Steven Van Evera and others have suggested that the evaluation function performed by university faculties?reviewing past strategic choices of states in order to optimize new ones?is important both to understanding international relations and to designing sound national security policy. Unfortunately, established faculty at universities have often frowned on policy-oriented scholarship, particularly when it has been intelligence related. Even for government insiders, the evaluative function is often thought of as the exclusive domain of the Congressional oversight committees. Yet, among a growing group of credentialed scholars, intelligence in no longer an arcane and poorly understood discipline beyond the bounds of critical thinking. With their careful research into documentary records and related theoretical work, intelligence is coming to be recognized as a field of scholarship in which political scientists and historians can make useful contributions to both IR theory and policy. This paper will make this argument and detail the particular areas in which scholarship may be most useful. It will also make recommendations on how the US intelligence community can capitalize on the literature this new field is generating. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five years after it was unexpectedly shoved to the back of the national security policy agenda by concerns about terrorism, the question of whether or under what circumstances the United States should build and deploy weapons for using force in and from space is gradually re-emerging as a major policy issue that will face U.S. and other national leaders over the coming decade. A strikingly high proportion of the arguments offered about this subject to date have been built on questionable or outright incorrect premises?in some cases for instrumentally polemical reasons, in others because authors and commentators have focused disproportionately on either the political or the technical dimensions of the subject without giving sufficient attention to its other aspects. This paper seeks to make at least some of these discussions more productive by examining a set of problematic propositions about space weapons and weaponization, each of which is frequently accepted as correct by advocates on one or more sides of the space weapons debates, and identifying the ways in which they fundamentally mischaracterize their subject.The propositions are:1. Space power and space control are mainly about weapons in space.2. Space is already so militarized that weaponizing it won?t be a big deal.3. The weaponization debate is a typical argument between hawks and doves.4. Defensive counterspace operations are less aggressive than offensive ones.5. Weapons in space are inevitable, so there is nothing to gain, and much to lose, by letting others build them first.6. Space-to-Earth weapons would be extremely powerful, and would change things more than anti-satellite weapons.7. Space is the ultimate high ground: the state that develops space weapons first will have a decisive advantage over its enemies.8. The military use of space is repeating the evolution of sea and air power in earlier eras, and will continue to do so.9. U.S. space weapons would lead to an arms race in space like the cold war nuclear arms race.10. Space weapons might be ineffective or unaffordable, or they could be threatening to others, but not both. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human societies are increasingly challenged to find ways to benefit from natural resources without destroying the environment on which they depend. In a globalized world where progressive demands often clash with profit motivations, states seek creative governance mechanisms to achieve these oft-conflicting goals. Governance, understood as the emergence and recognition of principles, rules, and procedures, provides standards of acceptable public behavior that are followed to generate behavioral regularities. The solutions span the range from strict regulatory control to laissez-faire market mechanisms to voluntary mechanisms. This paper argues that governmental processes focusing on policy steering beyond the traditional regulatory approaches are often better able to address the changing nature of societal demands for environmental protection and economic competitiveness. The article analyzes the factors explaining the variation in policy practices including external forces such the competitive economic forces, regime influences, and the spread of norms through the system, and internal pressures such as socio-cultural conditions, institutional framework, government initiative, societal demands, and economic conditions. Using the cases of Lithuania, Estonia, Russia and the United States, the article reveals that regime influences, domestic institutions, socio-cultural conditions and government initiatives take us a long away in explaining the variations of choices we see across states. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the basic themes in the study of international relations is the phenomenon of continuity. To account for this continuity, scholars usually resort to one of two different explanatory strategies: purported long-term goals of states or the psychology of those who dominate the state's foreign policy making. This paper proposes an alternative way of thinking about continuity. First, we lay out a picture of foreign policy continuity for a particular state, the United States, indicating the different levels of policy and what features a multilevel argument about continuity must have. Second, we turn to the cybernetic tradition and sketch out a class of theories about policy making, those which emphasize means-, rather than ends-driven activities. We then indicate how, in general, such theories can address the issue of multi-level policy continuity. Finally, we return to the issue of U.S. foreign policy and put forward a sort of test issue to apply and evaluate cybernetic explanations: how to account for the repeated resort to the same sort of policies even after major foreign policy disasters. Our answer, cybernetically, is that U.S. policy makers engage in what we would call tactical learning. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]