Search

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent actions by the Bush administration, remind us that the federal courts often are required to resolve questions of individual rights in lieu of foreign policy concerns. This paper explores judicial influences in foreign policy litigation across all three levels of the federal judiciary to determine whether judges systematically rule in favor of foreign affairs when confronted with civil liberties challenges. Using an original dataset of federal cases from 1946-2000, the paper provides evidence that the federal judiciary is extremely deferential to governmental authority in the conduct of foreign relations. While the federal judiciary is prone to support foreign policy interests, it is important to understand the conditions under which these judges will rule in favor of civil liberties claims. An important influence is the ideological preferences of judges. The empirical results indicate that more liberal judges -- as measured by partisan affiliations of the appointing president -- are more likely to render decisions in favor of civil liberties. This result holds for each level of the federal judiciary, although the results are more pronounced in the Supreme Court, less so for the Appeals Courts, and the weakest for District Courts. A second important influence involves the presence of a national security defense. The empirical data suggest that lower court judges are significantly affected by these situations; systematically ruling in favor of foreign affairs. However, Supreme Court justices do not respond in a similar fashion; the presence of a specific national security defense is not significantly related to judicial decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is both a political history as well as a methodological model for understanding the relationship between participation of religious actors and the continued existence of blue laws, which restrict alcohol sales on Sundays, in certain states but not in others. In order to do this, the paper will first review the history of the role of religion and politics in the United States with particular interest in regards to Sabbath laws and alcohol policies. Second, the paper will review the literature in regards to religion and political participation in order to demonstrate the role religious actors have had in regards to public policy. Finally, this paper will propose a model and method by which to explore the association between religious participation and the continuing existence of blue laws in some states but not in others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines China's accession to WTO (World Trade Organization) through power transition theory. According to the power transition theory, some states that belong to the category of great powers are dissatisfied with the current international order as their national power is increased through industrialization. These states challenge the dominant nation, which leads the international order. Keeping world peace or the stability of the current order depends on whether the tension between a challenger and a supreme power is controlled or not. This theory explains the conflicts between a challenger, China, and a dominant nation, the United States, in the issue of China's accession to WTO. Since the Republic of China had developed rapidly through 'reform and open policy', the tension in the U.S.-China trade had increased. Thus, China was dissatisfied with the fact that it was excluded from the WTO system. The United States decided to deal with China's dissatisfaction; hence, 15 years of negotiation for China's accession to the WTO was launched. During the negotiation, the tension between two nations arose over the surface, but finally, China was able to participate in the WTO in 2001. This paper is significant for two reasons. Firstly, China's accession to the WTO was a symbolic event in the U.S-China trade, which is the most important issue in the power relationship between the two nations. Secondly, it proves the tool of the 'power transition theory' that enhances the understanding of the political implication of China's accession to the WTO. Although power transition theory has its own theoretical limitations, it explains that embedding China in the international trade order controlled by the United States is the question of not only economic gain and loss but also power politics. This is the main argument of this paper. The paper consists of three parts: 1) the summary of power transition theory; 2) its application and analysis for the case of China's accession to WTO; 3) argument; and 4) conclusion. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent work in international relations has suggested that norms and law can sometimes hold a constraining effect in the realm of international security, contra the expectations of realist theories. This paper evaluates U.S. compliance with one such norm, that of noncombatant immunity, in recent military engagements, while articulating a general theory of state compliance with international law. In contrast to recent work that finds a high level of compliance with the norm of noncombatant immunity in the ongoing Iraq conflict, I argue, drawing evidence from several recent but concluded conflicts, that a more complete assessment of compliance must begin by considering the contentious aspects of a norm's definition. After probing the sources of ambiguity and interpretive dispute in the international law of noncombatant immunity, I argue that U.S. compliance with the norm of noncombatant immunity in the First Gulf War and the Kosovo intervention paralleled the clarity of the relevant normative obligation. Where clarity was high (such as on the obligation not to intentionally target groups of civilians), U.S. compliance was likewise high, whereas where the obligation remained ambiguous (such as on the necessary precautions required to avoid unintentional but expected civilian casualties), U.S. compliance was more limited. I then present a theory suggesting that states may make strategic use of normative ambiguity to balance a minimum level of politically useful compliance with other competing goals, such as force protection and military effectiveness. The paper concludes by considering what these findings suggest about the role of norms in international security. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue outlined in this paper is that U.S. democracy promotion in Africa occurs only when it is convenient for the superpower from the West. Analyzing the countries that comprise the Gulf of Guinea – which share commonalities of recently discovered oil reserves, marginally democratic or nondemocratic regimes, and friendly relations with the U.S. - this paper illustrates how U.S. foreign policy continues to be shaped more by motives of self-interest than by real concern for the promotion of democracy and constitutional liberalism. The gap that exists between political rhetoric and policy is especially noteworthy in the wake of the September 11 attacks and the increased focus of the U.S. on democracy promotion in the Middle East. Given the renewed efforts to thwart terrorism by pressuring authoritarian regimes to open up politically and increase human liberties, the ongoing friendly relations between the U.S. and authoritarian regimes in arenas outside the Middle East border on hypocrisy. Despite recent rhetoric by U.S. policymakers concerning freedom and human rights advancements in Africa, actual U.S. policy in the Gulf of Guinea region belies the fact that U.S. economic interests still subvert the professed desire to see democracy succeed on a global scale. United States involvement in the Gulf of Guinea has important implications for the ability of individual countries in the region to avoid the ‘resource curse’ and to establish viable institutions. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This project attempts to explain what drives media coverage of international disputes. The coverage of disputes is very important in determining the salience of foreign policy by providing information to the general public of foreign events. In this paper I argue that there are three factors driving the amount of coverage a dispute receives. The first issue is the intensity of the dispute, particularly whether or not the dispute involves fatalities. The higher levels of intensity results in a greater amount of coverage. The second issue is the states that are involved in the dispute. The final issue is whether or not the United States was the initiator or the target in the dispute. The findings generally illustrate that intensity does drive the coverage but there is significant randomness in the amount of coverage a dispute receives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing rivalries between China and U.S. starting from economic issues, diffusing to political and military dimensions, reassure the rational solutions presumed by power transition theory. By examining the combined effects of international systemic structure, international context, the impact of Chinese democratization, the changing share of national capability, Chinese nationalism, and domestic politics, the paper builds an empirical model to analyze how these factors shape the patterns of Sino-American Conflict over time. The model identifies a new pattern of conflict due to the increasing interdependence of economy and specifies that comprehensive engagement enhances rather than threats to U.S. leading power. Therefore the model predicts more cooperation than confrontation in Sino-U.S. relations in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivist theories of securitization are built on a foundation of communicative action tenets. While this represents an important and innovative advance in international relations theory, securitization ignores some of the components involved in a successful communicative act. Williams (2003) calls for securitization theory to incorporate the hitherto ignored effects of mass media and in this paper we answer this call. We first show that securitization's specification of leaders' speech acts and audiences' legitimative discourse presumes mass media actors are indifferent in how they convey leader representations and justifications of crises. We take this presumption as an empirical question and execute a study of whether the national presses of ally countries differently emphasized the frames Bush invoked in their news coverage of key September 11th speeches. We show from comparisons of chi-square distributions and regression analyses that, far from being passive conveyers of speech frames, the national presses of the US, Canada, France, Britain and Ireland (1) did not convey all of Bush's securitizing problem representations and response justifications proportionate to the extent Bush invoked them in his speeches, and (2) that for each national press factors based on professional norms and/or organizational routines increased the likelihood that a speech sentence would be conveyed in a news story. We discuss the implications of our findings for how securitization theory should conceptualize media actors when redressing this gap in its explanatory models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following paper seeks to address the question of whether the current U.S. administration's use of the term "human security" reflects a change in foreign policy direction. Is the State department's emphasis on smart power (diplomacy, development and defense) as well as the increasing use of the term 'human security' in State and Defense departments' briefings, reports and budget request an indication of a shift in policy, away from over-reliance on unilateralism and towards inclusive multilateral security cooperation? In order to develop a framework through which these questions can be answered, this paper will examine the use of the concept of human seucirty under the current administration in order to assess whether the 'smart power' foreign policy agenda reflects a break from past policy. To this end, the paper is divided into three main parts. Part one will examine the development of the concept of human security in order to see what the concept adds to the debate on national security. In part two, the paper will trace the use of the term by the current administration and examine whether in conjunction with a greater reliance on multilateral fora, the focus on human security represents a change from past foreign policy. Finally, by discussing U.S. policy against the wider literature on human security, the paper will assess whether the concept as well as the practice of human security can help overcome the security challenges of the 21st century. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beginning in 1939, many U.S. states have adopted the legislative veto to empower lawmakers with the authority to directly affect administrative rulemaking. At present, 23 states allow its legislature to veto or temporarily suspend agency rules. As one would expect, the significant differences in oversight procedures that exist across the states has resulted in extraordinarily dissimilar histories and experiences regarding this unique oversight mechanism. This paper builds on existing research by using data on all states from 1934 to 2010 to analyze variations across state legislatures regarding their veto powers. The primary findings from this analysis suggest that the presence of divided government affects the likelihood that a state will adopt a nullification veto system, but does not influence suspension veto system adoption. The condition most likely to result in the adoption of a legislative veto reform is the presence of Democratic majorities in the state legislature serving alongside a Republican governor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the paper highlighting role of knowledge in making decisions related with foreign policy issue. It reflects on the poll conducted in the U.S. in 2007 to demonstrate public opinion on Iraq war and according to the poll 50 percent of the population considers the decision to be wrong, only 39 percent agreed with government's decision. The article further discusses level of knowledge among public of the U.S. on Iraq conflict.

The central thesis of the paper is that the War in Iraq has impacted NATO capabilities, even though the operation is American rather than NATO led. Since a number of NATO partners contribute to official alliance missions in other places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo, their capabilities in those areas are reduced. This is true in categories such as weapons, equipment, personnel, and budget. U.S. capabilities in those four areas are the foremost ones that are reduced, due to the overwhelming injection of force into Iraq. Thus, American abilities to make a difference in other security policy areas are also compromised. On the other hand, those NATO partners who are playing a role in Iraq are gaining war fighting experience that could be useful if other crises break out. In addition, the study will place a special spotlight on the new NATO members admitted after 1999. In many respects, they have made some of the proportionately greater sacrifices, and they may act as a prism of the overall difficulties. The conclusion will summarize the costs and benefits to the alliance in measureable terms, in light of the four concrete factors listed above. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Military intervention has long been one of the major bones of contention throughout the modern history. Particularly in the aftermath of the Cold War, however, a multilateral dimension has become one of the indispensables for military intervention in line with the growing intergovernmental organization involvement. Evidently, the degree of international support for military intervention has an impact on the course and outcome of military intervention. Comprehensive consideration of the impact of multilateralism requires systematic quantitative outlook. In order to address the need for systematic, quantitative examination of the impact of multilateral consensus on the course of the military interventions this study concentrates on the analysis of the duration of the U.S. Military Operations (hereafter USMO) as dependent variable (i.e., durationUSMO), which presents clues about both the course and the outcome of the military interventions. The study barrows the dataset for the USMOs prepared by John A. Tures et al. In order to establish the ground for the elaboration on the relationship between two intricate concepts such as the military intervention and multilateral consensus, the paper begins with the review of the pertinent literature on military interventions, and then proceeds with surveying the growing essence of multilateralism in contemporary military interventions. After having the theoretical ground ready for quantitative analysis, the study operationalizes the independent variables, and thus setting the stage for the quantitative analysis, and then the interpretation of the findings. Finally, in the conclusion section the study outlines the lessons learned, and the future projections for the role of multilateralism in the formation and implementation of military interventions. Key Words: military intervention, multilateral consensus, duration of USMOs, post Cold War U.S. foreign policy ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzes the views of U.S. political leaders George Bush and George W. Bush on Iraqi wars. Comparison between the opinions of the leaders on democracy; Assessment of the State of the Union addresses of the leaders; Perspectives of the politicians on multilateralism.

Examines the usefulness of the foreign assistance policy process focusing on the foreign assistance behavior of the U.S. towards Africa between 1982 and 2001. Overview of the study of U.S. foreign assistance; Background on the two-stage aid decision making process used in the study to analyze foreign aid policy behavior; Measures used in the study to capture the external determinants of foreign assistance policy.

The public responses of Presidents Bush and Clinton to the 1990 and 1994 midterm elections receive scrutiny here. We employ the construct of "operational code" from the foreign policy literature in assessing presidential responses during three six month periods in the election season. Among our major findings, we discovered that both presidents expressed more cooperative statements in response to their midterm reversals, a rational adaptation to their depleted political resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-Americanism is a phenomenon that has received increasing attention in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and more recently with the invasion of Iraq. However, despite its wide use, anti-Americanism is used often as a polemic term, and then often inconsistently. We attempt to provide a clearer and more consistent definition of anti-Americanism. Then, using newly released Eurobarometer data from the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, we observe the prevalence of anti-American attitudes among the peoples of Europe, and what leads to these attitudes. We find that ideology, nationalism, attachment to a supranational Europe, the security concerns of Europeans, and U.S. behavior on the international stage are all strong predictors of anti-American attitudes. We then draw inferences about the effects of anti-Americanism. We find that anti-Americanism leads to an erosion of support for NATO and increased support for a defense arrangement led by the European Union, with no noticeable effect for support of defense led by national governments. Furthermore, anti-Americanism is increasing in Europe, which implies this trend of decreasing popular support for NATO and increasing support for an EU-led defense will continue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents an institutional analysis of foreign policy making since September 11, 2001 in the U.S. Discussion on who is in charge of U.S. national security policy; Impact of the terrorist attacks on the balance of power; Information on developments that resulted from the terror attacks in September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; Role of the executive branch with President George W. Bush and his advisors in leading the national security policy.

Studies examining the influence of interest groups on U.S. foreign policy result in contradictory findings about the relationship between interest group behavior and policy outcomes. This paper, by focusing on details of various stages in the legislative process, explores conditions under which influence of interest groups on Congressional behavior on U.S. foreign policy is possible. In a study of the case of Congressional behavior on U.S. policy toward Cuba, we will see that interest groups may shape policies by impacting different stages of the legislative process. In this respect the paper will advance both the literature on international relations as well as the literature on interest group politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the potential risk effects of alliance commitments on dispute onset and escalation. This issue is theoretically framed as a moral hazard problem from the economic literature: if one party (agent) pledges a particular commitment to another party (principal), the moral hazard for the agent arises if the principal's behavior (e.g. a reckless move) raises the risk for an agent to act on its behalf due to its contractual commitment to the principal. In international relations, alliance commitments might pose such a moral hazard risk in the context of extended deterrence. That is, how much can the protege's behavior vis-a-vis another state actually entrap its ally ("defender") into a conflict? I separate an answer to this question into two specific issues: (1) whether states with alliance commitments from others are more likely to initiate conflicts than other states without such alliance provisions; (2) given that a conflict is initiated between the protege and its opponent, whether the protege is likely to get an aid from its ally and at what escalation level. After the conceptual and theoretical discussion, the paper proceeds with a quantitative empirical analysis and draws conclusions for current U.S. policies in cases of its relations with Taiwan in East Asia, India and Pakistan in South Asia, and Israel in the Middle East. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the role of emotions in foreign policy decision making by looking at the decisions taken by the U.S. Presidents on foreign issues. While the role of emotions in decision making has been increasingly receiving consideration, this paper studies specific decisions of the U.S. Presidents on foreign issues.From the decisions taken in the Vietnam War to the rescue operation decision in the Iranian Hostage Crisis a dataset will be coded for each President accordingly. After hypotheses testing, the results will be discussed as to whether or not emotions did play a role in foreign policy decision making. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post-Soviet Central Asian states have increased in visibility recently, in particular regarding the evolving relationship of the external great powers - the United States, Russia, China, and to a lesser extent India. Varying forms and degrees of multilateral security regimes are under experimentation, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The United States, meanwhile, has chosen to maintain a bilateral approach to its relations in the region. In this paper, I explore the current status of security relations in the Central Asian region, seeking to determine those conditions and patterns of behavior consistent with the construction of a security community, and those consistent with an emerging security dilemma, adopting in particular the notion of "cooperative security dilemmas" as put forth by Holger Moelder in his study of the Baltic States. The paper also considers potential costs and benefits of the United States taking a more multilateral approach in the region, particularly in inter-institutional relations between NATO and the SCO. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the possessor of the "Islamic Bomb" and a front line in the war on terror, Pakistan presents special challenges for U.S. policy. This paper seeks to understand the development of Pakistan's nuclear program, the current status, and likely direction in the future. The paper will also examine the interaction among nuclear armed Pakistan, India, China, and the United States. The paper will examine Pakistani force structure as well as command and control. Finally, the paper will note implications for U.S. policy. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the 1999-2000 Presidential campaign, future President George W. Bush faced strong criticism and even ridicule for his lack of foreign policy experience. His answer was that although he personally might have been inexperienced in world affairs, he enjoyed the support of "one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled" (Bruni 2000). Two years later, this team, now occupying top governmental positions, began showing signs of internal tension between the "hawks", such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the "doves", such as Secretary of State Colin Powell. The source of this rift was the President's policy toward Iraq. This division was illustrated by the fact that Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage opposed a hasty, unilateral military intervention, whereas Donald Rumsfeld and Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz viewed Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat" against the US, and thus supported military actions against the Iraqi dictator (Rennie 2002; Borger 2002). Although not as publicly visible as Rumsfeld and Powell prior to the Iraq war, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice quietly contributed to President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy, which advocated the acceptability of preventive and unilateral military strikes against the United States' enemies. After the war, however, Rice emerged as an outspoken advocate for extensive American involvement not only in Iraq but in the Middle East as a whole (Mann 2004). During the second George W. Bush Presidency Rice replaced Powell as Secretary of State.This recent example illustrates common divisions within the foreign policy apparatus, as laid out by the work on bureaucratic politics (Allison1969, 1971; Halperin 1974). Here advisors working in the Department of Defense are expected to be less inclined toward cooperation and more likely to see the world as a hostile environment than those working in the State Department. This paper empirically tests the supposition that there is a correlation between the psychological characteristics of foreign policy decision makers and the bureaucratic role that they play. The bureaucratic politics literature suggests that advisors working in the national security/military arena see the world as a more conflictual place than those working for the diplomatic apparatus, and that they are more likely to see direct confrontation as the best policy tool to achieve their goals (Allison and Halperin 1972; Smith 1984; Wallace 2005). The substantive research question investigated in this paper is: Are there significant psychological differences between policymakers across the security - diplomacy divide within the American foreign policy making apparatus? I explore the connection between security/defense and diplomacy roles and individual personalities through a quantitative analysis of the psychological traits of 12 Presidential advisors (Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor) since 1988 to 2004, in the process integrating theories from both bureaucratic politics and political psychology. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A heated debate rages in American academia and policy-making circles about what drives US policy towards Israel, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Scholars are split over whether it's the "Israel Lobby" or strategic considerations that drive US policy in this regard. A common error in scholarly inquiries into this issue is the treating of US policy towards Israel on the one hand, and US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the other, as the same thing. This paper emphasizes that there is a distinction there. Since it's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that makes US Israel-policy controversial, this paper will start with a brief historical account of the conflict to identify the remaining core contentions, before engaging the policy debate. The paper argues that while Israel is of strategic utility to the US, current US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict contradicts US interests. Thus, the general close US-Israel alliance may be attributed to strategic US interests in the region, while US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular may be attributed to the powerful domestic Israel Lobby in the US. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers analyze the foreign policy decision making of political leaders in a variety of ways. One area of this literature is image theory. It is quite possible that image theory is the single most important and potentially useful cognitive construct used to explain the political behavior of leaders, especially in the post-Cold War world. However, questions still remain regarding the impact of images on policy preferences and state behavior (Young and Schafer 1998). Moreover, methodological issues need to be addressed. This paper argues that images do indeed affect behavior. Specifically, I examine the impact of a political leader's background in the intelligence community on their image and, in turn, their foreign policy. I develop and carry out a research design that utilizes operational coding to examine the case of former United States President George H.W. Bush who headed the Central Intelligence Agency from 1976 to 1977. I conclude the paper with a discussion on the utility of the findings. I also explain how this paper will be integrated into a larger research program that will look at how an intelligence community background can influence a political leader's foreign policy decision making via image in differing political systems. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the doctrine of presidential supremacy in the U.S. within the scope of foreign policy as of January 2016. It examines the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases U.S. v. Belmont, U.S. v. Pink, and U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright to clarify the doctrine, which is also known as "the sole organ of the nation" clause. Also cited are the powers of the president like the appointment of presidential "czars."

In the 21st century, political theorists trained in continental and analytical traditions in western thought should not be parochial. Political theorists are trying to avoid parochialism by wrestling with questions of global relevance or using methods that engage with texts and ideas that have been marginalized in the cannon of western political thought. These two approaches to intellectual isolationism might seem incompatible because the first is question-driven and the second is methodology-driven. In fact globalizing both the questions of political theory and the theoretical traditions that inform political theory are important directions for 21st century political theory, and they ought to be pursued simultaneously and in collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States emerged as a 'factor' in India-Iran relations with Bush Administration's efforts to change the global nuclear order to accommodate India's interests. In turn, India supported the US-led drive to impose sanctions on Tehran. This led to chilling of India's once warm relations with Iran. Since then, however, India has begun to chart a course more independent of Washington by showing renewed interest in Iran's energy sector and by opposing unilateral sanctions on that country. Two factors have contributed to this shift. First, the Obama administration has ignored India in a bid to woo Pakistan, seen as crucial to brokering a political settlement in Afghanistan. Secondly, the US has also failed to persuade Pakistan to take Indian concerns about terrorism emanating from its territory, more seriously. Iran and Iran's interests converge on the issue of stability in Afghanistan, which involves facilitating trade and preventing pro-Pakistan Taliban factions from becoming a part of Kabul's power structure. This also entails reining in transnational terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil, which has long affected both the countries. This paper argues that areas of convergence between Indian and Iranian interests far outweigh differences and therefore the two countries will not abandon their mutually beneficial relationship. Issues - such as energy, terrorism, and Afghanistan - crucial to both will continuously draw them together in the foreseeable future. However, the dilemma posed by continuous pulls and pressures of ties with United States will certainly overstretch India's capacity to balance its relations with Washington and Tehran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explain the uneven patterns shown in 24 regional integration organizations' (RIOs) institutional achievement during 1956-2001, I explain regional integration levels in terms of positive or negative security externalities of trade. Generally, regional integration tends to increase intraregional trade. Therefore, if states pursue regional integration with non-allies or foes, they would be exposed to potentially high "negative" security externalities of trade. In contrast, if they pursue regional integration with their allies, they would gain "positive" security externalities of trade. In this light, if a given RIO's members are composed exclusively of allies promising defense pact, the members are more likely to achieve the highest level of regional integration. In contrast, if states pursue regional integration with non-allies or foes, they are more likely to achieve a very low level of integration. Of course, although this explanation is not a totally new hypothesis, the impact of alliance has not been examined rigorously and systemically. Therefore, this paper's main purpose is to estimate the impact of intraregional alliance on regional integration. Specifically, as the method of robustness checks, the impact of intraregional alliance is tested (1) with three alternative measures of alliance (2) against similar but distinct three dependent variables and (3) by multivariate models with twenty alternative explanatory variables. The models are tested against 537 cases. These cases are obtained from the Integration Achievement Score dataset. According to empirical findings, intraregional alliance is the most robust and important general cause in that its signs and statistical significance are always consistent. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies on the Bush presidency have summed up and identified three central traits: military hegemony, preemption, and unilateralism. Consequently, recent debate has focused on the emergence of unilateralism, as well as the inherent nature of American foreign policy as multilateral, unilateral, or vacillating. This project seeks to contribute to this debate in two ways. First by providing a thorough analysis of contemporary unilateralism and its historical perspective in American foreign policy. The goal is to put forth a clear contextual understanding of unilateralism and to reveal its perceived strategic relevance in American foreign policy. Secondly, the paper seeks to satisfy the question: Was the Bush administrations display of unilateralism an anomaly of American foreign policy? By examining rhetoric of presidential administrations in the post Cold War era, we can identify and measure unilateralist tendencies and values (over multilateral ones) predating, and then later expanded by the Bush administration. For this, the study will draw on content analysis of presidential speeches and policy statements, as well as those of other central foreign policy leaders in the selected administration. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do terrorist attacks on their country make citizens more nationalistic? Given the importance of both terrorism and nationalism in modern societies and international relations, this is a critical question. Terror Management Theory (TMT) suggests that because the experience of a terrorist attack raises the salience of our mortality and reminds us of our vulnerability, it will cause us to cling to our own worldview and to reject others' - especially those whom we hold responsible for the attacks. This anxiety leads to intolerance for dissent, hostility toward difference, a desire for vengeance, and increased nationalism (Pyszczynski 2004). We use TMT to generate two hypotheses about the effects of terrorism and fear on nationalism that we then test in four culturally and politically dissimilar cases: the U.S., Spain, Israel/Palestine, and Peru. We find that under certain conditions, TMT does help explain popular responses to terrorist attacks; but our case studies suggest mitigating factors that can potentially weaken its predictive power. The paper is co-written by a professor and three senior undergraduate students, as part of a project at Lebanon Valley College supporting collaborative faculty-student research in the social sciences and humanities. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous work has shown a President's capacity to shape public policy through articulating political narratives (goals and values under a connected label) in domestic policy [Neustadt (1964)] and in foreign policy [Bose (1998)]. Recently released accounts of the Bush administration allow us, for the first time, to analyze the impact of his narrative.This paper, a part of a larger project, compares the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in the uses of presidential narratives to signal and shape administration policy. I argue that these presidents use two distinct narrative types. President Bush adopted a "bounded" narrative (The War on Terror) which has a clearly laid out logic and is proactive in intent, while his predecessor adopted an "unbounded" narrative (The Third Way and Middle class entitlement) which is malleable in logic and reactive in intent.I argue that President Bush's bounded narrative strategy allowed him to impose a political context on administrative decision-making and to operate from a position of strength. However, Bush's strategy limited his flexibility in presidential decision-making and allowed administration officials to use the narrative to influence their own power stakes. It also tied President Bush to potentially unpopular political positions. Conversely, President Clinton's unbounded narrative strategy, a comparatively weaker leadership position, allowed him more flexibility in constructing administration policy and greater capacity for blame avoidance. I conclude that these two divergent strategies each have strengths and weaknesses but that president's might do a better job of fitting their strategy to the political climate. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of complexity science and agent based models has been growing within social science, in general, and specifically within political science. The tools of complexity have been used to examine a wide range of social science issues; collective action, elections, political economy, macroeconomics, and international relations. As of yet, though, there has been very little application of the tools of complexity science to issues associated with American political institutions. This project seeks to begin that process by taking a complex adaptive systems approach to the United States Congress. Traditionally formal models of Congress have used a game theoretic approach. However we believe that there are analytical gains to be made by using the agent based approach. Systems that have dynamics, heterogeneous agents, non-linear interactions, adaptation, positive and negative feedback, and externalities are prime candidates for an application of the complex adaptive systems approach. We make the argument in this paper that each of these properties is an important (and often core) attribute of the congressional policy making system. In order to illustrate the analytical leverage of the complex systems approach we first build a set of models that replicate the most prominent models of congressional policy making. To these we add a model using the complex adaptive systems approach. We are then able to simulate a simple public goods allocation problem in each model and view the various policy outcomes. The core feature of our model is that it allows the pivotal agent to arise endogenously. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing rivalries between China and U.S. starting from economic issues, diffusing to political and military dimensions, reassure the rational solutions presumed by power transition theory. By examining the combined effects of international systemic structure, international context, the impact of Chinese democratization, Taiwan Issue, the changing share of national capability, Chinese nationalism, and domestic politics, the paper builds an empirical model to analyze how these factors shape the patterns of Sino-American Conflict over time. The model identifies a new pattern of conflict due to the increasing interdependence of economy and specifies that comprehensive engagement enhances rather than threats to U.S. leading power. Therefore the model predicts more cooperation than confrontation in Sino-U.S. relations in the near future. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At least since the early 20th century, the United States has been gripped by fundamental questions about its proper place in the world. Should America intervene in other nations' affairs, or isolate itself from their difficulties? Cooperate in international institutions or aggressively assert its sovereignty? Make war or make peace? These dueling conceptions of America's place have come to fore repeatedly, such as when Congress considered whether to support a World Court in the 1920s, whether to provide massive post-War aid to Europe in the 1940s, or whether to provide military and economic assistance to halt communism during the Cold War decades of the 1950s and 1960s. Although foreign policy is a stereotypically "male" domain, U.S. women's groups have played a central role in nearly all of the important foreign policy debates of the 20th century. Over many decades, women's leaders marched up to Capitol Hill to take a stand - typically for international engagement and global peace. And yet, by the 1990s and early 2000s, women's groups had almost completely disengaged from foreign affairs. Why? Using more than 100 years of data on women's groups' Congressional testimony, this paper will examine the rise of foreign policy on women's organizational agenda - and then the dramatic fall. In examining women's historical role in American foreign affairs, this study will unravel the contemporary puzzle of Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who set up camp outside President Bush's ranch to protest the war that killed her son and was subsequently vilified as a "lone nut" out of step with mainstream sentiment on the Iraqi invasion. This study will suggest that Cindy Sheehan is not so much a lone nut as just alone. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2008 presidential campaign was a benchmark in Virginia's political history because it was the first presidential campaign in almost five decades that saw any real competition for Virginia's vote. While long term demographic changes were necessary for Virginia to become competitive, election specific issues were crucial to Virginia's transition from a reliably Republican state to a state that Democrats won in 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a comparative study of the current state of European Union and the United States during its Founding Era. The research assumptions are as such: 1) there are parallels to be drawn between the two governments in terms of their democratic institutions; 2) there are significant parallels to be drawn between the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate in the US at the time of the Founding, and the current pro- and anti-Europe debates in the European Union over the merits of centralization within the organization; 3) trends in the EU, as analyzed through these institutional areas, indicates an increasingly centralized federal political structure. In this study, a qualitative comparative method is used to evaluate the similarities and differences between the EU today and the US at the Founding Era. Specifically, an institutionalist approach is employed to determine the nature of the political structure of the constitution (or constitution-like documents), the legislature, the judiciary, and the interaction between the institutions and the citizens. Findings indicate that the European Union, both as a static and dynamic institution, strongly resembles the nature of the United States around the time of its founding. This finding suggests a tendency in the European Union towards centralization and confederation, in much the same direction as the United States did two centuries ago. A tentative prediction for the future might be that the EU will continue to centralize to a certain extent, through its institutions, but will probably not ever come to resemble the United States by forming a single country. There is no evidence that Europeans want to completely yield national sovereignty. However, the increased benefits of centralization and the self-reinforcing tendency of centralized institutions to increase chances for further centralization suggest a continued centralizing trend in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about the international norms and its impact by the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. It informs the U.S. has carried out countless interventions throughout the Cold War and during its conduct of foreign policy. It also discusses about conflicts between the rationalists and social constructivists over the relationship between norms and international behavior.

Presidential saber rattling has become an increasingly important tool of U. S. foreign policy in the post-World War II era. Yet, there has been no study attempting to explain why presidents make threats toward external actors. Is presidential saber rattling purely reactive to external threats directed toward the nation-at-large? If so, then presidents are acting as statesman representatives who primarily serve national interests. Or, do presidents react primarily to domestic stimuli in their decisions to make threats toward external actors? If so, then they are potentially behaving as self-interested politicians attempting to bolster their domestic standing. We formalize these arguments and then evaluate the competing theories by examining presidential saber rattling across eleven presidents and sixty-four years. We find that modern presidents respond to both foreign and domestic stimuli when choosing to make foreign policy threats. Our results suggest that presidents are sometimes statesmen and sometimes self-interested support-seekers in their manner of foreign policy representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Illicit drug control policy of prohibition/criminalization has been the dominant paradigm of US drug policy for decades. This strategy of drug control has also been extended to the world through the global drug prohibition regime under the control of the United Nations. Questions have however, been raised on the existing policy within the US and across the world in recent years. The common idea is that the current drug policy is ineffective and seems unchanging. Whether policy change is occurring within the US narcotics drug policy is an important empirical research puzzle that needs to be explored. The research investigates the broad patterns of how policy change (radical or marginal) has occurred or is occurring over time within the US drug control policy since 1990, and the implications of change for the global drug prohibition regime. The research draws on key theories of policy change -orders of change (Hall, 1993) and the punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) to examine US drug policy change. Contrasting these theories, I argue that Hall's theoretical concept of first and second order policy change provides a better explanation for the changing US drug policy. Also, US influence as a hegemonic power impacts the global drug prohibition regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fact that public opinion matters in foreign policy decisions has been a matter of general consensus in the literature. Yet, the existing research on the interaction between domestic politics and international relations remains inconclusive. Still, most of the existing studies are based on the research conducted during the Cold War, and the effects of American foreign policy on the views of foreign publics about the United States have been rarely investigated.Today, in the post-911 era, where threats are no longer emanating only from the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers, and when the streets of developing countries have the potential of breeding future terrorists, the perception of the United States abroad has become an element of American security more than ever before. Hence, studying the means of how the United States can influence the views of foreign publics about the United States has gained an unprecedented importance. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Realism has always been considered one of the safest foreign policy strategies that a nation can follow. Focusing on one's own self interest and the interests of their countrymen has always guaranteed a level of security and consistency that has earned the favor of so many U.S. officials. Now, some of the nations that provided the United States, Great Britain, and other European powers with the most economic or regional control years ago, are the same nations that monopolize our mass media as the plague of international security today.Some of modern histories most notorious revolutions and rebellions have spurred out of years of external meddling and oppression. The Cuban Revolution of 1959, and the 1979 revolutions in both Iran and Nicaragua are the direct result of U.S. intervention and realist tactics. The United States has never had a clear foreign policy except for the cries of liberty and democracy that have carried our nation against every enemy from Nazism to Communism, from Terrorism to Despotism. However, every conflict seems to end in the same confusion surrounding the actual objective of the United States government; is the main objective oil or freedom?The solution is a new look on the workings of the world, that actual promotion of liberalism and constant support for the will of the people, rather than using realist tactics, will eventually result in greater economic and political gain for the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most treaty studies address issues of compliance (Morrow, 2007; Kelley, 2007). This is often a fruitful research agenda when we can determine a useful definition of compliance and when there is variance in compliant behavior. However, in the case of extradition treaties, a good definition of compliance is hard to come by, and given what is probably the most intuitive definition (i.e. extraditing pursuant to a request), states over comply. Furthermore, before we can begin to understand compliance, we need to understand commitment. Accordingly, I take a step back and seek to determine those factors, which influence the decision to commit. I analyze the decision to commit by looking at whether states sign bilateral extradition treaties. I draw upon the legal and political science literature to develop a comprehensive model of states' decisions to sign. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American Responses to Israeli Foreign Policy InitiativesThe origin of the US-Israeli relationship can be found in President Harry S. Truman's support for the new state of Israel on May 14, 1948. While support to Israel has varied during presidential administrations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush, strategic interests have steadily defined the nation's responses to Israel. Important works in the literature delve deeply and in detail to describe the US-Israeli relationship (Quandt 2005, Spiegel 1985; Oren 2007, 2002). The literature, however, does not rely on empirical studies to try to explain what causes positive or negative US responses to Israeli foreign policy initiatives. Empirical research measuring US responses to Israeli foreign policy initiatives can lead to understanding of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel; and such knowledge serves the public interest. In order to measure US reaction to Israel, this empirical study conducts a content analysis on US statements published in the New York Times following four Israeli military initiatives: the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1976 Raid on Entebbe, the 1981 Raid on Osirak, and the 2006 Lebanon War. The research reveals that the US reacts more positively to Israeli reactive than to anticipatory and preemptive self-defensive actions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article proposes an alternative theoretical framework that will discern the exact inter-institutional policy-making relationship which the president shares with the U.S. Congress in the realm of foreign affairs. A utilizing factor and content analyses of presidential position roll call votes in foreign affairs are suggested to showcase the role played by divergent issue areas such as national security. The author observes that the post-Cold War order would be defined as a period of change in the politics of the opportunity structures.

The article examines the relationship between domestic public opinion and international relations between two or more independent states from the perspective of international relations scholars and Americanists. It takes a closer look at the impact of decisions made by American presidents on their approval ratings. It offers a hypothesis that contends that the outcomes of international disputes impact public opinion in predictable ways beyond those best articulated in the simple rallying effect thesis.

The article presents information on the U.S. policy toward the Taiwan Strait under the administration of President George W. Bush. It puts the policy under historical perspective by examining the evolution of it. Some previous research literatures will be briefly discussed and argues that all of them cannot convincingly account for U.S. policy toward Taiwan in this time period. It proposes that there are two levels in the international system and rational actors at different levels will play different games to maximize their interests and power.

The article discusses the relations between the European Union (EU) and the U.S., with focus on the position of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). It examines whether the rift is deepening towards heading the transatlantic relations from alliance to partnership. The author questions whether the ideas of global war against terror, shaping global trade environment, and spreading American model of democracy help to maintain the tie.

The article compares the rhetoric of genocide in U.S. foreign policy in Rwanda and Darfur, Sudan. It is noted that one of the great moral and political failures of U.S. foreign policy is the lack of response to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and the administration of former U.S. President Bill Clinton consciously avoided referring to the situation as genocide. The author claims, however, that the dealing of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration with the tragedy in Darfur belies the approach of the Clinton administration in Rwanda.