foreign policy topics research paper

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, solving the world’s hardest problems with mellody hobson: closing the racial wealth gap, weapons in space: a virtual book talk with dr. aaron bateman, u.s.-australia-japan trilateral cooperation on strategic stability in the taiwan strait report launch.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia

American Innovation

Civic education, climate change, cybersecurity, defense budget and acquisition, defense and security, energy and sustainability, food security, gender and international security, geopolitics, global health, human rights, humanitarian assistance, intelligence, international development, maritime issues and oceans, missile defense, nuclear issues, transnational threats, water security.

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) examines research topics surrounding global studies, international relations, & foreign policy issues.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Research Paper Topics

25 Foreign Policy Research Paper Topics

25 foreign policy topics for a successful paper.

• Foreign policy and the role of propaganda in it
• Foreign policy of Japan
• Foreign policy of People’s Republic of Korea
• Foreign policy in the age of globalization
• Colonisation and the relations between former colonies and metropoly
• Weapons of mass destruction as instrument of foreign policy
• The foreign policy of President Trump
• The importance of diplomacy in the foreign policy
• Can terrorism be controllable instrument of foreign policy?
• Foreign policy of USA and USSR during the Cold War
• The idea of “Global Democracy”
• Foreign policy and its dependance of resources of country
• What makes the country strong enough to be a powerful player on the global arena?
• Foreign policy of USA
• Foreign policy of EU
• Foreign policy of Russia
• Protecting human rights and the foreign policy
• Case study of Fashoda Incident
• Yalta Conference
• The changes in the foreign policy of China in the last decade
• The loudest foreign policy events in 2018
• Dictatorships and the similarities in their foreign policy
• The changes in the foreign policy of the USA after the tragedy of September 11th
• Military intervention as an instrument of the foreign policy
• Humanitarian aid as an instrument of the foreign policy

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

• How It Works
• PhD thesis writing
• Master thesis writing
• Bachelor thesis writing
• Dissertation writing service
• Dissertation abstract writing
• Thesis proposal writing
• Thesis editing service
• Thesis proofreading service
• Thesis formatting service
• Coursework writing service
• Research paper writing service
• Architecture thesis writing
• Computer science thesis writing
• Engineering thesis writing
• History thesis writing
• MBA thesis writing
• Nursing dissertation writing
• Psychology dissertation writing
• Sociology thesis writing
• Statistics dissertation writing
• Buy dissertation online
• Write my dissertation
• Cheap thesis
• Cheap dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help
• Pay for thesis
• Pay for dissertation
• Senior thesis
• Write my thesis

168 Current International Relations Research Topics For Any Level

Are you a student looking for intriguing international relations research topics? Look no further! In this blog post, we have created a list of 168 unique and thought-provoking research topics in the field of international relations that should help students get an A+ on their next paper.

Whether you’re studying political science, international affairs or related disciplines, this comprehensive list covers a wide range of fascinating subjects. From global governance to security issues, diplomacy, human rights, and more, these topics are designed to inspire your research and help you delve deeper into the complexities of international relations. So, grab your notepad and get ready to explore these captivating research ideas!

A Word On International Relations Theses

International relations is the study of interactions between nations and global actors. It examines politics, economics, security, and culture, exploring how countries cooperate, conflict and shape global dynamics. If you’re about to start working on a thesis in international relations and you are wondering what to include in your paper, here is a short explanation of each of the mandatory chapters:

Introduction: The opening section that presents the research problem, objectives, and significance of the study. Literature Review: A comprehensive review of existing scholarly works related to the research topic, providing a context for the study. Methodology: Describes the research design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques used to address the research questions or hypotheses. Findings: Presents the empirical results or outcomes of the research, often supported by data, analysis, and interpretation. Discussion: Analyzes and interprets the findings in relation to the research objectives, drawing connections to existing literature and providing insights. Conclusion: Summarizes the main findings, highlights the contributions to the field, and suggests avenues for future research. References: Lists all the sources cited in the thesis following a specific citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

Now, it’s time to deliver on our promise and give you the list of international relations research paper topics. Choose the one you like the most:

Easy International Relations Research Topics

Explore our list of easy international relations research topics that will help you understand global politics and analyze the dynamics of international relations with ease

• The impact of globalization on state sovereignty and international relations
• Analyzing the role of non-state actors in global governance structures
• The influence of soft power in shaping international relations and diplomacy
• Exploring the relationship between human rights and international relations
• Examining the dynamics of economic interdependence in international relations
• The role of international organizations in promoting peace and security
• Assessing the impact of climate change on international relations and cooperation
• Analyzing the role of regional integration in shaping global politics
• The implications of cyber warfare for international relations and national security
• Examining the challenges and opportunities of humanitarian intervention in international relations
• Analyzing the role of ideology in shaping state behavior in international relations
• Exploring the impact of migration and refugee crises on international relations
• Assessing the role of international law in resolving conflicts and promoting peace
• Investigating the role of intelligence agencies in shaping international relations

International Relations Thesis Topics

Our wide range of international relations thesis topics will guide you towards developing a strong research question, conducting in-depth analysis, and contributing to the field with your original research:

• Power dynamics and the balance of power in international relations
• Exploring the role of diplomacy in conflict resolution and peacebuilding
• The impact of nuclear proliferation on international security and non-proliferation regimes
• Analyzing the role of international institutions in managing global crises
• The influence of nationalism on interstate relations and regional cooperation
• Examining the role of international norms and human rights in shaping foreign policy
• Assessing the impact of economic globalization on state sovereignty in international relations
• The role of social media in shaping public opinion and international relations
• Exploring the concept of hegemony and its implications for international relations
• The role of gender in international relations and its impact on policy-making
• Analyzing the role of intelligence agencies in shaping international relations
• The implications of emerging technologies on international security and arms control
• Examining the role of media and propaganda in international conflicts and public opinion
• The impact of regional integration on state behavior and international cooperation

Advanced International Relations Topics For Research

Dive into complex issues, explore cutting-edge theories, and unravel the intricate dynamics of global affairs with our advanced international relations topics for research:

• China’s global rise and its power dynamics
• Non-traditional security threats in international relations
• AI and warfare: Implications for international security
• Climate change, conflict, and forced migration in international relations
• Religion and politics in international relations
• Populism’s impact on global governance and international relations
• Social movements and civil society in shaping international relations
• Pandemics and international cooperation: Implications for global governance
• Cultural diplomacy and soft power in international relations
• Information warfare and disinformation in international relations
• Regional powers shaping global security dynamics
• Responsibility to protect and humanitarian interventions in international relations
• Resource scarcity and environmental degradation in international relations
• Migration and refugee crises’ impact on global stability

International Relations Research Questions

Our carefully curated list of international relations research questions will inspire critical thinking and promote meaningful discussions:

• How does power transition theory explain shifts in global power dynamics?
• What are the implications of the rise of non-state actors on traditional state-centric international relations theories?
• How do identity politics and nationalism shape interstate conflicts?
• What are the factors influencing state compliance with international human rights norms?
• How does globalization impact state sovereignty?
• What are the challenges of multilateralism in addressing global issues?
• How does public opinion influence state behavior in international relations?
• What are the causes and consequences of failed states in international relations?
• How does the distribution of power in international institutions affect their legitimacy?
• What are the implications of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, on international security?
• How do regional conflicts and security dilemmas impact regional integration efforts?
• What are the root causes of terrorism?
• How does economic interdependence shape interstate relations and global governance structures?
• What are the challenges of global environmental governance in addressing climate change?

International Relations Paper Topics

Choose one of our international relations paper topics that resonate with your interests and embark on an enriching research journey:

• The role of ideology in shaping state behavior in international relations
• Analyzing the impact of economic sanctions on diplomatic relations between countries
• The role of media and propaganda in influencing public opinion in international conflicts
• Exploring the relationship between globalization and cultural identity in international relations
• The implications of cybersecurity threats on national security and international relations
• Assessing the role of intelligence agencies in gathering and analyzing international intelligence
• Analyzing the impact of regional organizations on regional conflicts and cooperation in international relations
• The influence of international trade agreements on global economic and political relations
• Exploring the dynamics of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in international relations
• The role of international law in resolving territorial disputes and promoting peace
• Non-state actors in international relations: Influence and challenges
• Conflict resolution mechanisms: Negotiation, mediation, and peacebuilding approaches
• Diplomatic immunity: Balancing immunity with accountability in international relations
• The impact of global pandemics on international cooperation and security

Engaging Topic Ideas About International Relations

Are you seeking engaging and captivating topic ideas for your international relations research? Choose one of these engaging topic ideas about international relations:

• Global governance and international organizations in addressing global challenges.
• Nationalism’s impact on international relations and global cooperation.
• Soft power in shaping international perceptions and relations.
• Regional conflicts’ implications for global stability and security.
• Cyber warfare: Assessing evolving cyber threats in international relations.
• Media’s role in international relations: Influence, propaganda, and disinformation.
• Economic interdependence: Opportunities and risks in global relations.
• Diplomacy in the digital age: Challenges of virtual diplomacy.
• Global migration and refugee crises: Humanitarian and political dimensions.
• Human rights in international relations: Promoting universal rights.
• Terrorism’s impact on global security and counterterrorism efforts.
• Environmental diplomacy: Addressing global environmental challenges.
• Religion’s role in international relations.
• Regional power dynamics: Influence of major powers in different regions

Interesting International Relations Research Paper Topics

Uncover fascinating research paper topics in international relations that will captivate your readers and showcase your analytical skills. Use one of these interesting international relations research paper topics:

• Populism’s rise and its impact on international relations and global governance
• Climate change’s geopolitical implications: Conflicts, migrations, and resource competition
• Hybrid warfare: Analyzing blurred lines between conventional and unconventional threats
• Technology’s impact on diplomacy and the future of diplomatic practices
• Nuclear energy diplomacy: Balancing peaceful uses and proliferation concerns
• Soft power and cultural industries’ influence in international relations
• Politics of humanitarian aid: Challenges and ethical considerations
• Media framing’s impact on public opinion in international conflicts
• International cooperation in space exploration and its geopolitical implications
• Diaspora communities’ role in shaping international relations and global politics
• Migration policies and human rights: Balancing border control and human dignity
• Global health governance: Cooperation, challenges, and pandemic responses
• Environmental peacebuilding: Addressing conflicts over natural resources and degradation
• Economic sanctions: Effectiveness and ethical implications in international relations

Political Science Dissertation Topics

Our list of political science dissertation topics will provide you with a solid foundation for developing a unique research proposal and making a significant contribution to the field:

• The role of political ideologies in foreign policy and international relations.
• National security strategies and state behavior in international relations.
• Global governance and collective decision-making challenges in international institutions.
• Public opinion’s influence on foreign policy and international relations.
• Identity politics and intergroup relations in international contexts.
• Humanitarian interventions and the responsibility to protect.
• Geopolitics and resource conflicts: Strategic importance of natural resources.
• International law’s role in shaping state behavior and resolving conflicts.
• Comparative political systems in international relations.
• Political leadership’s impact on diplomatic relations and cooperation.
• International development assistance: Aid effectiveness and challenges.
• Non-state actors in global politics: Influence, networks, power dynamics.
• Intelligence agencies in international intelligence gathering and analysis.
• Political parties and foreign policy shaping

Current International Relations Topics For Research Paper

Stay up to date with the latest developments in global politics by exploring our selection of current international relations topics for research paper writing :

• Emerging technologies’ impact on global security and power dynamics.
• Transnational threats: Terrorism, crime, and cyber challenges in focus.
• Regional integration in globalization: Achievements, limitations, and prospects.
• Trade wars: Implications for global economy and cooperation.
• Disinformation and fake news: Influence on international politics and public opinion.
• Climate change negotiations: Progress and challenges in combating global warming
• Cybersecurity and emerging threats in international relations.
• Regional power dynamics in the Middle East: Implications for global security
• Global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: Cooperation and challenges
• Climate change mitigation and adaptation in international policy
• Rising nationalism and its impact on international cooperation
• Humanitarian crisis in Yemen: International responses and challenges
• Technology and the future of warfare: Implications for global security
• The Belt and Road Initiative: Assessing its impact on international relations

Awesome Research Topics For International Relations

Our awesome research topics for international relations allow you to explore diverse areas of global politics and contribute to the field with your exceptional research:

• NGOs’ role in shaping international policies and agendas
• Humanitarian interventions and the responsibility to protect: Effectiveness and ethics
• Cybersecurity challenges in international relations: Risks and responses
• Global migration governance: Policies and implications
• Globalization vs national sovereignty: Impacts on state behavior
• China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Geopolitical influence and challenges
• Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation: Effectiveness of treaties
• Gender in international relations: Impact of norms and policies
• Post-colonial perspectives in international relations: Power dynamics and legacies
• Climate justice and international cooperation: Addressing climate change
• Regional organizations in global governance and international relations
• Politics of humanitarian intervention: Strategies and outcomes
• Political economy of international trade: Impact of policies and agreements
• Populism’s impact on democracy and international relations

Controversial International Relations Topics

Delve into the realm of controversy and discourse with our thought-provoking controversial international relations topics:

• Drones in targeted killings: Legal and ethical implications
• Nuclear energy and non-proliferation: Benefits and risks
• Intervention in state sovereignty: Legitimacy and consequences
• Ethics of economic sanctions: Effectiveness and impact on civilians
• Cyber warfare and international norms: Regulating cyber conflicts
• Climate change’s impact on national security and conflicts
• Intelligence agencies in covert operations and international relations
• Politics of humanitarian aid: Motivations and challenges
• Ethics of military intervention: Justifications and consequences
• Politics of regime change: Motivations and implications
• Media bias’s impact on international perceptions and diplomacy
• Private military companies: Challenges and accountability
• Politics of disarmament and arms control: Progress and challenges
• Corporate interests’ influence on foreign policy and relations

Best International Relations Topics For 2023

Stay ahead of the curve with our selection of the best international relations topics for 2023. These carefully curated topics reflect the current trends, emerging challenges and pressing issues:

• COVID-19 pandemic’s implications on global politics and international relations
• Rise of populism and its impact on democracy and international cooperation
• Cybersecurity challenges in a hyper-connected world: Risks and responses
• Future of international cooperation in addressing global challenges and conflicts
• Climate change and security: Implications for international relations and stability
• Evolving role of regional powers in shaping global politics and relations
• Technological advancements’ impact on state power and international relations
• Global governance reform: Restructuring international institutions
• Social media’s role in shaping international perceptions and political movements
• Challenges and prospects of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
• Intersection of artificial intelligence and international relations
• Impact of trade wars on global economic relations and cooperation
• Geopolitical tensions in the Arctic: Resource competition and influence
• Future of multilateralism: Relevance and effectiveness in a changing world

Get Affordable Help Today

Are you struggling with your international relations research paper or stuck writing a coursework ? Need some help during your next test? Don’t worry, our academic writing company is here to help. We offer professional thesis writing help with a team of highly educated and experienced writers. Our dedicated professionals ensure our high quality work is delivered in a rapid and efficient manner. We understand the importance of affordability, which is why we provide our services at affordable rates.

With our safe and reliable service, you can trust that your paper is in good hands. Whether you’re a college student or in any class, our custom online assistance will ensure that you receive top marks on your international relations research paper. Don’t stress, let our professional service assist you and help you get an A+ on your next international relations research paper!

We have also prepared a list of best topics on the following disciplines:

• 122 Best Ecology Topics To Sparkle Your Writing
• 150 Original Accounting Research Paper Topics
• 233 Marketing Research Topics To Come Up With An Impressive Paper
• Leadership Topics For Academic Research Papers
• 222 Best Anatomy Research Paper Topics To Discuss
• 101 Best Computer Science Topics
• 50+ Excellent Economics Paper Topics You Should Not Miss
• 100 Gender Research Topics For Academic Papers
• 60+ History Research Paper Topics From Our Top Writers
• 110 Impressive Nursing Research Topics To Use

How do I choose a research topic in international relations?

Consider your interests, current events, and gaps in existing literature to identify an area of focus. Brainstorm potential topics and ensure they align with your research objectives.

What makes a strong international relations research paper?

A strong research paper includes a well-defined research question, solid theoretical framework, rigorous analysis, credible sources, and logical structure. It should also contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

How can I narrow down my international relations research topic?

Consider specific regions, actors, theories, or policy areas within international relations. Narrowing down your topic will allow for a more focused and manageable research paper.

Can I use case studies in my international relations research paper?

Yes, case studies can be valuable in providing empirical evidence and in-depth analysis. They help illustrate theoretical concepts and offer real-world examples to support your arguments.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment * Error message

Name * Error message

Email * Error message

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future.

Ukraine Live Updates

• How it works

Useful Links

How much will your dissertation cost?

Have an expert academic write your dissertation paper!

Dissertation Services

Get unlimited topic ideas and a dissertation plan for just £45.00

Order topics and plan

Get 1 free topic in your area of study with aim and justification

Yes I want the free topic

US Foreign Policy Dissertation Topics and Examples

Published by Owen Ingram at January 6th, 2023 , Revised On January 6, 2023

US foreign policy has evolved significantly since the country’s inception. Since 1776, the US government has employed various strategies to protect and advance its interests abroad, foster relationships with other nations, and promote peace around the world. Over time, these policies have been shaped by geopolitics, international law, and public opinion.

At its core, there are four main principles:

• diplomatic engagement with other countries
• fostering economic prosperity through trade agreements and investments
• protecting national security by leveraging military prowess
• promoting universal values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law

Through these principles, the United States has strived to maintain global stability while promoting its own interests in a complex international environment.

As new challenges like terrorism or climate change arise, US foreign policy must continue to adapt to best serve the nation’s needs.

The topic of US foreign policy is an area of research that has grown in importance and relevance over the past few decades.

As countries become increasingly interconnected, the decisions made by US leaders have a direct impact on how other nations, both near and far, respond to events around the world.

For students looking for dissertation topics , researching US foreign policy offers a wealth of information to explore.

The study of US foreign policy provides students with an overview of the current state of international affairs.

Researching this topic can offer insight into complex political issues such as trade agreements between nations, geopolitical tensions between different regions and security concerns that arise from terrorist threats or military actions abroad.

Additionally, studies on US foreign policy allow students to look at how the country interacts with its allies and adversaries, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of how diplomacy works globally.

US Foreign Policy Dissertation Topics: How to Choose?

Writing a dissertation on US foreign policy is exciting, yet it can also be challenging. With so much to choose from in foreign policy, deciding which topic to focus on can be overwhelming.

Here are some tips for choosing a dissertation topic related to US foreign policy to make the decision easier.

• Consider what interests you most about the field of US foreign policy.
• Think about what particular aspects of this subject are most captivating or intriguing to you, and make a list of potential topics.
• Once you have narrowed your list, research each topic thoroughly to determine its relevance in today’s political landscape.
• Consider what resources are available; factor in primary sources such as government documents or personal interviews with people involved in the issue; and secondary sources such as scholarly articles or other published works dealing with the subject matter.
• Consider whether there is enough evidence to support a strong argument and any recent developments related to each candidate’s topic.
• Review other scholarly works on related topics and include their findings in your analysis when appropriate.
• Geography Dissertation Topics
• International Development Topics
• Diplomacy Dissertation Topics
• Brexit Dissertation Topics

List of US Foreign Policy Topics for Dissertation

• Public opinion and American foreign policy
• The diplomacy of ideas: US foreign policy and cultural relations, 1938-1950
• Public opinion and public policy, 1980-1993
•  Terrorism and US foreign policy
• Foreign policy topic of a talk by church
• The hypocrisy trap: US Foreign aid in the middle east
• America’s Empire in the Philippines. Headlines series 288.
• Understanding the unilateralist turn in US foreign policy
• The politics of scrutiny in human rights monitoring: evidence from structural topic models of US State Department human rights reports
• Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and US foreign policy
• Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity.
• Defending the national interest: Raw materials investments and US foreign policy
•  Ideology and US foreign policy
• America unbound: The bush revolution in foreign policy.
• Who influences US foreign policy?
• The Wilsonian century: US foreign policy since 1900
• The media’s role in US foreign policy
• The age of imperialism: The economics of US foreign policy
• Why Americans must lead again: Recusing US foreign policy after Trump
• World power trends and US foreign policy for the 1980s
• Agendas, alternatives, and public policy: Lessons from the US foreign policy arena
• Testing models of US foreign policy: Foreign aid during and after the Cold War
• Ethnic groups and US foreign policy
• Why is health important to US foreign policy?

The Importance of Selecting the Right US Foreign Policy Dissertation Topic

Choosing the right topic for a US foreign policy dissertation can offer multiple benefits.

• Firstly, it will help ensure that students can adequately explore the research subject matter effectively and comprehensively. The more focused and specific the thesis topic is, the easier it will be to uncover trends and patterns in data.
• Secondly, selecting a relevant topic also helps to maintain the reader’s interest throughout the research paper or dissertation. By choosing an exciting and engaging subject to explore in-depth, readers will stay engaged with an argument over extended periods.
• Finally, focusing on one single aspect of a more significant issue, such as US foreign policy, allows you to gain a greater understanding of its complexities, leading to further areas of exploration or potential future studies.

How Can ResearchProspect Help?

ResearchProspect writers can send several custom topic ideas to your email address. Once you have chosen a topic that suits your needs and interests, you can order for our dissertation outline service which will include a brief introduction to the topic, research questions , literature review , methodology , expected results , and conclusion . The dissertation outline will enable you to review the quality of our work before placing the order for our full dissertation writing service!

FAQs About US Foreign Policy Dissertation Ideas

How do i choose the most appropriate us foreign policy dissertation topic.

The first step in selecting a US foreign policy dissertation topic is to gain an understanding of the various elements that make up the subject. Consider all of the different aspects of foreign relations, such as economic and security concerns, diplomacy, international organisations and treaties.

Once you have gained an understanding of this information, you can begin exploring potential topics more deeply. Look for areas where there has been significant change over time or potential for further development in current topics that could lead to new insights into US foreign policy.

Is the list of dissertation topics above unique?

All topics are unique. However, it is available to the public to use for free so other students might use them. For a completely unique topic according to your requirements, contact us .

Does ResearchProspect provide customised and unique US foreign policy dissertation topics?

ResearchProspect provides many types of dissertation writing services , and we do provide customised US foreign policy dissertation topics. To learn more about us, visit the website.

You May Also Like

Need interesting and manageable law dissertation topics or thesis? Here are the trending law dissertation titles so you can choose the most suitable one.

Engineering is one of the most rewarding careers in the world. With solid research, investigation and analysis, engineering students dig deep through different engineering scopes to complete their degrees.

Use our latest list of the best demonstration speech topics available for free to improve your presentations and engage your audience.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Foreign Policy Paper Series

Through the Foreign Policy Paper series, Brookings senior fellows and other experts weigh in on a broad range of critical issues facing the United States and international community.

Tim Boersma, Natan Sachs

February 19, 2015

Daniel L. Byman, Jeremy Shapiro

January 12, 2015

Bruce Jones, Thomas Wright, Jeremy Shapiro, Robert Keane

February 25, 2014

Select experts

Select program, select topics, select regions.

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment
• Human Rights
• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects

United States

Reagan: His Life and Legend

Book by Max Boot September 10, 2024

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• Students and Educators
• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

NATO's Future: Enlarged and More European?

Virtual Event with Emma M. Ashford, Michael R. Carpenter, Camille Grand, Thomas Wright, Liana Fix and Charles A. Kupchan June 25, 2024 Europe Program

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

U.S. Foreign Policy

Council Special Report by Robert D. Blackwill and Thomas Wright May 28, 2020

Conference Call with Mira Rapp-Hooper Jun 18, 2020

• Politics and Government The Changing Role of Foreign Policy at the U.S. National Conventions The quadrennial U.S. presidential nominating conventions often focus on domestic themes. But they have at times been flavored by global economic concerns and national security threats, offering competing Democratic and Republican visions about the United States’ role in the world. In the 2024 race, Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, and his challenger, Vice President Kamala Harris, are projecting starkly different worldviews. Timeline by Jonathan Masters , Kevin Lizarazo and Jeremy Sherlick August 26, 2024
• Venezuela Carrots Need Sticks: The Biden Administration and the Case of Venezuela  The Biden administration appears to be offering Venezuelan dictator Maduro amnesty if he will leave power, but sticks as well as carrots will be needed to persuade him. Blog Post by Elliott Abrams August 13, 2024 Pressure Points
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Is the “Two-State Solution” Still Viable? Is the longstanding proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the “two-state solution,” still viable? A recent debate took on all the issues, and I argued for “no.” Blog Post by Elliott Abrams August 6, 2024 Pressure Points

Experts in this Keyword

Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies

Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow

Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies

James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance

Distinguished Fellow

Senior Fellow for National Security

Adjunct Senior Fellow for Africa Studies

Fellow for Latin America Studies

Adjunct Senior Fellow

President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations

Lowy Distinguished Fellow in U.S.-Middle East Diplomacy (2018-2024)

Editor, Foreign Affairs; Peter G. Peterson Chair

George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies

Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies

Senior Fellow; Managing Director; Secretary of the Corporation

Adjunct Senior Fellow for Law and Foreign Policy

• Venezuela Can Maduro Be Negotiated Out of Venezuela? The United States should try to find out if an offer of amnesty will persuade Venezuela's dictator to permit and respect the results of a free election on July 28. Blog Post by Elliott Abrams July 19, 2024 Pressure Points
• U.S. Foreign Policy U.S. Diplomacy in the Middle East: "Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?" U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East seems unaware of how U.S. power should be deployed to decrease the chances of war and to support U.S. allies. Blog Post by Elliott Abrams July 9, 2024 Pressure Points
• Venezuela The United States and the Venezuelan Election Every sign suggests that Venezuela's presidential election on July 28 will be stolen. Will the Biden administration then acknowledge that its policy toward Venezuela has failed--and change it? Blog Post by Elliott Abrams July 6, 2024 Pressure Points
• Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Program At the Community of Democracies Meeting, the Biden Administration Downgraded Its Support for Democracy By sending an acting deputy assistant secretary of state to represent the United States at the recent Community of Democracies meeting that the United States chaired, the Biden administration showed a lack of commitment to democracy. Blog Post by Elliott Abrams June 15, 2024 Pressure Points
• Middle East and North Africa CFR Fellows’ Book Launch Series: The End of Ambition: America’s Past, Present, and Future in the Middle East by Steven Cook Play In  The End of Ambition , Steven A. Cook boldly claims that despite setbacks and moral costs, the United States has had a record of success in the Middle East. Yet, beginning in the 1990s, those achievements bred ambitious policies to remake the region that ended in failure and regional instability. While making the case that retrenchment is not the answer to America’s problems in the Middle East, Cook highlights how America’s interests in the region have begun to change and examines alternative approaches to U.S.-Middle East policy. The John B. Hurford Memorial Lecture was inaugurated in 2002 in memory of CFR member John B. Hurford, and features individuals who represent critical new thinking in international affairs and foreign policy.   Virtual Event by Steven A. Cook and James M. Lindsay June 12, 2024 John B. Hurford Memorial Lecture
• Military Operations Sea Power: The U.S. Navy and Foreign Policy The U.S. Navy’s dominance of the world’s oceans has made it an indispensable foreign policy tool and a guarantor of global trade, but a mix of challenges is raising difficult questions about its future. Backgrounder by Jonathan Masters June 12, 2024
• China How the United States Can Effectively Pivot to Asia After the rise of Chinese power during the 2010s and failed U.S. policies in the Indo-Pacific, the United States should renew the Pivot to Asia and place the region at the center of its grand strategy.* Expert Brief by Robert D. Blackwill and Richard Fontaine June 11, 2024 Asia Program

• Middle East and North Africa U.S. Policy in the Middle East, With Steven A. Cook Podcast Steven A. Cook, the Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at CFR, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss the United States’ past, present, and future policy in the Middle East. Podcast with James M. Lindsay and Steven A. Cook June 4, 2024 The President’s Inbox

• Venezuela Will the United States Boost Maduro in Venezuela’s Election? A forced sale of CITGO oil company just days before Venezuela's July 28 presidential election would be a propaganda bonanza for the Maduro regime, and should be delayed by the United States government. Blog Post by Elliott Abrams June 2, 2024 Pressure Points
• U.S. Foreign Policy Washington’s Ill-Fated Mideast Ambitions U.S. administrations have backed sweeping efforts for societal change in the Middle East in recent decades, with poor results. But Washington can still achieve more modest, essential goals in the region.* Expert Brief by Steven A. Cook May 31, 2024 Middle East Program

A nation must think before it acts.

• America and the West
• Middle East
• National Security
• Central Asia
• China & Taiwan
• Expert Commentary
• Conversations
• Intern Corner
• Newsletters
• Press Contact
• Upcoming Events
• People, Politics, and Prose
• Briefings, Booktalks, and Conversations
• The Benjamin Franklin Award
• Event and Lecture Archive
• Ties That Bind: NATO at 75 and Beyond
• Chain Reaction
• Bear Market Brief
• Baltic Ways
• Report in Short
• Our Mission
• Board of Trustees
• Board of Advisors
• Research Programs
• Audited Financials
• PA Certificate of Charitable Registration
• Corporate Partnership

With Russia playing an ever-larger role in global politics, understanding the drivers of Russian foreign policy is crucial. This series of papers examines the factors that shape Russian’s relations with countries in its neighborhood and further afield. What are Russia’s foreign policy goals? What tools has it used to try to achieve them? And to what extent is Russia attaining its aims? Drawing on scholars with deep regional expertise and based on fresh research, Russia Foreign Policy Papers provide new insight into understanding Russia’s international role.

Publications:

• Understanding Russia’s Cyber Strategy - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Josephine Wolff - July, 2021
• Russia’s Nuclear Activity in 2020: A Show of Strength Despite COVID-19 - Reports , Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Maxim Starchak - May, 2021
• Russia’s Struggle to Gain Influence in Southeast Asia - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Bennett Murray - August, 2020
• The Role of the Military in Russian Politics and Foreign Policy Over the Past 20 Years - Orbis , Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Anna Borshchevskaya - July, 2020
• Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss: Putin ‘Changes’ the Constitution - Orbis , Russia Foreign Policy Papers - William R. Spiegelberger - July, 2020
• “Engaged Opportunism”: Russia’s Role in the Horn of Africa - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Samuel Ramani - July, 2020
• Russia’s Defense Industry: Between Political Significance and Economic Inefficiency - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Pavel Luzin - April, 2020
• Friends or Frenemies? How Russia and Iran Compete and Cooperate - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Nicole Grajewski - March, 2020
• Russian Private Military Companies: Continuity and Evolution of the Model - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Anna Borshchevskaya - December, 2019
• Belarus-Russia: From a Strategic Deal to an Integration Ultimatum - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Arseny Sivitsky - December, 2019
• Russia’s Awkward Dance with Vietnam - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Bennett Murray - October, 2019
• Russia’s Engagements in Central America - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Ivan Ulises Klyszcz - October, 2019
• NATO in the Baltics: Deterring Phantom Threats? - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Robert E. Hamilton - July, 2018
• Hanging by a Thread: Russia’s Strategy of Destabilization in Montenegro - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Reuf Bajrovic, Vesko Garčević, Richard Kraemer - July, 2018
• Moscow on the Mediterranean: Russia and Israel’s Relationship - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Joshua Krasna - June, 2018
• Outfoxed by the Bear? America’s Losing Game Against Russia in the Near East - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Michael A. Reynolds - April, 2018
• Russian and American De-Confliction Efforts in Syria: What’s the Endgame in the Civil War? - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Robert E. Hamilton - April, 2018
• The 2016 Coup Attempt in Montenegro: Is Russia’s Balkans Footprint Expanding? - Russia Foreign Policy Papers - Dimitar Bechev - April, 2018

• All Articles
• Books & Reviews
• Anthologies
• Audio Content
• Author Directory
• This Day in History
• War in Ukraine
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• Artificial Intelligence
• Climate Change
• Biden Administration
• Geopolitics
• Benjamin Netanyahu
• Vladimir Putin
• Volodymyr Zelensky
• Nationalism
• Authoritarianism
• Propaganda & Disinformation
• West Africa
• North Korea
• Middle East
• United States
• View All Regions

Article Types

• Capsule Reviews
• Review Essays
• Ask the Experts
• Reading Lists
• Newsletters
• Customer Service
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriber Resources
• Group Subscriptions
• Gift a Subscription

U.S. Foreign Policy

Explore Foreign Affairs ’ coverage of the evolution of Washington’s approach to foreign policy and the United States’ role in the world.

Top Stories

The credibility trap.

Is Reputation Worth Fighting For?

Keren Yarhi-Milo

The most dangerous game.

Do Power Transitions Always Lead to War?

Manjari Chatterjee Miller

Why they don’t fight.

The Surprising Endurance of the Democratic Peace

Michael Doyle

The fractured superpower.

Federalism Is Remaking U.S. Democracy and Foreign Policy

Jenna Bednar and Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar

The china trap.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Perilous Logic of Zero-Sum Competition

Jessica Chen Weiss

All democracy is global.

Why America Can’t Shrink From the Fight for Freedom

Larry Diamond

America has more latitude with israel than it thinks, why whataboutism works, europe’s america problem, industrial policy needs an immigration policy, paper soldiers: how the weaponization of the dollar changed the world order, base towns: local contestation of the u.s. military in korea and japan, the perils of isolationism, indirect rule: the making of u.s. international hierarchy, what really went wrong: the west and the failure of democracy in the middle east, the crumbling foundations of american strength, world on the brink: how america can beat china in the race for the twenty-first century, the case for a clean energy marshall plan, the ecology of nations: american democracy in a fragile world order, the boiling moat: urgent steps to defend taiwan, the return of hamiltonian statecraft, the autocratic allure, a life in the american century, ascent to power: how truman emerged from roosevelt’s shadow and remade the world, the trouble with allies, what republican foreign policy gets wrong, america’s missed chance in afghanistan, what was the biden doctrine, china is in denial about the war in ukraine, how everything became national security, a post-american europe, putin’s new agents of chaos, the middle east’s dangerous escalation, the taiwan fallacy, biden’s middle east moonshot, america isn’t ready for the wars of the future, the limits of a u.s.-saudi security deal, waging the wrong war in yemen, does china prefer harris or trump, 中国倾向于哈里斯还是特朗普？, why america stands to lose if it resumes nuclear testing, china’s vision for a new world order, the forgotten war in congo, the right way to quickly end the war in ukraine, the limits of the china chip ban, why america has failed to forge an israel-hamas cease-fire, america’s dilemma in kenya, what biden’s exit means for american foreign policy, china’s dangerous nuclear push, the red sea crisis goes beyond the houthis, the imperial presidency unleashed, the palestinian authority is collapsing, the case for inclusive alliances, searching for an endgame with china, the dangerous push for israeli-saudi normalization, iran’s new naval ambitions, avoiding war in the south china sea, the right way for america to counter russia in africa, a better path for ukraine and nato, when america and china collided, the looming crisis in the taiwan strait, trump the realist, biden, trump, and washington’s wishful thinking, africa needs more american involvement—not less, america’s asian partners are not worried enough about trump, should ukraine keep attacking russian oil refineries, iran’s new nuclear threat, a foreign policy for the world as it is, the pivot that wasn’t, the progressive case for american power, fear factor, the return of peace through strength, israel’s war of regime change is repeating america’s mistakes, what are china’s nuclear weapons for, populism’s grip on mexico, sleepwalking toward war, how to convince putin he will lose, israel is losing america, america is losing the arab world, the terrorism warning lights are blinking red again, a deep state of his own, why would anyone want to run the world, it’s time for america and turkey to reconcile, a three-theater defense strategy, the dangerous myth of deglobalization, how the world can deal with trump, iran, israel, and america’s future in the middle east, what does america want from china, a reset for america and mexico, an “america first” world, don’t go to war with the icc, can america’s special relationship with israel survive, how china will squeeze, not seize, taiwan, how jimmy carter changed american foreign policy, gaza and the breakdown of international law, how will taiwan’s new president handle china, the coming north korean crisis, taiwan is the new berlin, why iran and israel stepped back from the brink, nato cannot survive without america, america, china, and the trap of fatalism, america’s china strategy has a credibility problem, the secret to japanese and south korean innovation.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Political Science Research

iResearchNet

Foreign Policy

Work on foreign policy is ubiquitous because its central focus is essential to the study of political science and international relations (IR) more generally: understanding how decision makers perceive threats, constraints, and opportunities in their external and internal environments, and how these perceptions guide actions toward other governments and nongovernmental actors. The subfield of foreign policy is a prominent research area in the study of IR. The Foreign Policy organized section of the American Political Science Association has one of the largest memberships of the association’s thirty-seven sections; the subfield supports a dedicated journal, Foreign Policy Analysis; and the academic publishing house Palgrave Macmillan hosts the book series titled Advances in Foreign Policy Analysis. Foreign policy research can be found across the major paradigms of IR, including realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Foreign policy scholars have published work covering all the regions of the globe in studies that are both historically grounded and focused on the contemporary. Seminal studies investigate foreign policy making of the great powers, especially U.S. and Soviet decision making during the cold war era and at the end of the cold war. Other studies compare and contrast the foreign policies of different states on similar issues and focus on the foreign policies of middle powers and small states. Scholars of foreign policy have also addressed the dominant debates in the field of IR, including the extent to which decision makers are influenced by domestic or international factors or a combination of the two, the behavior of democracies versus authoritarian states, and whether rational choice or sociological frameworks are more useful in the study of political behavior. While the decision-making approach to foreign policy has dominated the subfield, new developments in the study of foreign policy include the analysis of how state decisions are influenced not only by individual policy makers but also by larger factors, such as cultural trends and religion. In addition, recent work has moved beyond the dependent variable of foreign policy to focus on foreign policy change and on the impact of foreign policy on domestic politics (the second image reversed).

Paradigmatic Approaches to Foreign Policy

It is typically argued that realist IR theory does not provide a theory of foreign policy. To be sure, realist theories primarily focus on broad trends and patterns in interstate interactions and make predictions regarding aggregate state behavior. Kenneth N. Waltz, one of the most prominent contemporary political realists, has famously noted in Theory of International Politics (1979) that his theory of international politics “does not tell us why state X made a certain move last Tuesday” (p. 121). Notwithstanding Waltz’s claim that structural-level theories cannot account for state foreign policy, most realist theorists have applied their approaches to account for foreign policy outcomes, and they often participate actively in foreign policy debates.

Realists generally make three interrelated claims regarding foreign policy. First, realists assert that foreign policies are largely driven by external constraints and opportunities, namely, the state’s position in the international system and the system’s distribution of material capabilities. While realists acknowledge that domestic politics, normative discourse, and ideas and ideologies can affect a state’s foreign policy decision making, they suggest that most of the time foreign policy is a function of material factors such as international anarchy and the states’ capacity for fighting wars. Since international structural conditions are constants and generate both fear and lack of trust, foreign policy choices tend to be limited and are reflective of the national interest and the need to survive. Indeed, even contemporary neoclassical realists, who attempt to bring domestic-level variables and decision makers’ perceptions back into the study of foreign policy outcomes, nevertheless begin their analyses with the external pressures and incentives that states face: unit-level variables intervene between structural constraints and foreign policy choice.

Second, realists claim that if states face similar structural constraints and opportunities, then their foreign policies will be remarkably similar as well. Differences in state regime types and identities, as well as new leadership and decision-making styles, are largely irrelevant to the analysis. Last, realists argue not that domestic politics and individual-level variables never matter for foreign policy decision making but rather that states that continually base foreign policies on such factors will inevitably suffer from poor foreign policy performance. That is, realists focus less on the foreign policy–making process, which may or may not be influenced by nonstructural factors, and more on the consequences of foreign policy outcomes. Past and recent realist studies have, for example, criticized U.S. foreign policy for being inconsistent with national strategic interests due to the influence of ideology and domestic political interest groups.

Whereas realists view foreign policy choices as driven by a state’s position in the international system, liberal IR theorists maintain that variation in state-societal factors influences foreign policy, even for states that face similar structural constraints and opportunities. Focusing on the domestic sources of foreign policy, scholars have examined a wide range of variables including institutional fragmentation and cohesion, public opinion, and the role of the media.

In recent years, the proposition that democratic states’ foreign policies are more pacific—whether only in relation to other democracies or in general—than are those of autocracies has become a cottage industry within both the subfield of foreign policy and the broader field of IR. Discussions of foreign policy decision-making processes and outcomes, particularly crises among democracies that resulted in near-wars, dominate the debate about the notion of democratic peace. For proponents, it is crucial that foreign policy match the predictions made by democratic peace theory; democratic peace theorists are interested in showing not only that in the aggregate democracies act differently abroad but also that democratically elected decision makers act and think in ways consistent with the theory. For opponents, the analysis of foreign policy crises and war and peace decisions suggests that power differentials and material capabilities matter more for the decisions of both democratically elected and authoritarian leaders.

Foreign policy researchers have also used case studies of foreign policy to challenge the democratic peace theory’s truncated version of domestic politics in general and democratic politics in particular. Criticism has been leveled at the democratic peace theory’s perspective on the second image, which tends to emphasize regime type (democracy vs. nondemocracy) at the expense of other domestic-level variables that also vary among democracies (e.g., civil-military relations, executive-legislative balances of power, and leadership styles). Here, foreign policy analysis has suggested that democratic states frequently endorse different foreign policy positions as a result of differing national roles and leadership orientations; that for democratically elected leaders threat perception is often based less on the regime type of opposing states, as democratic peace proponents claim, and more on the personalities and international rule-following propensities of foreign counterparts; and that domestic pathologies of democratic decision making, such as the executive’s ability to manipulate information and the agenda, can lead to detrimental foreign policy outcomes.

While realist and liberal IR theorists engage the study of foreign policy, constructivist IR theory is perhaps the most closely associated with foreign policy analysis due to its emphasis on how threats and national interests are defined and framed and the ways in which external reality is shaped by agents, including foreign policy decision makers. Constructivists have examined how international and domestic norms influence the type of response that foreign policy makers will opt for when faced with an international crisis and how international events and developments are constructed as threats and problems for national security. The central argument here is that nonmaterial factors, including norms, culture, ideology, and identity, can shape decision makers’ opinions regarding appropriate and inappropriate foreign policy options as well as assessments of the likely consequences of different foreign policy actions.

The Decision-Making Approach

Central to the study of foreign policy is the notion that human beings misperceive information and that organizations skew decision making away from rational choice. An understanding of political psychology and bureaucratic politics is thus at the core of the foreign policy subfield. As Stephen G. Walker and Mark Schafer (2006) note, “research programs in foreign policy have always maintained that who decides matters” (p. 3). The focus of inquiry is the process of decision making, including the framing of problems, the prioritization of goals, and the assessing of options.

Foreign policy researchers have developed approaches that apply to individual decision makers, foreign policy makers working in small-group forums, and foreign policy decisions and implementation by large organizations. What unites these approaches is the key assumption that beliefs, attitudes, formative experiences, memories, and values shape the ways in which foreign policy makers approach and cope with the world around them.

One of the most influential research programs on the psychological dimensions of decision making is the analysis of operational codes. Scholars have teased out how foreign policy choice is influenced by the beliefs of leaders regarding the likelihood of international conflict; leaders’ propensities for believing in worst-case scenarios and their tendency to reason by analogy; and a leader’s estimation that he or she can change the world. Another prominent research area has developed around prospect theory. Applied to foreign policy, prospect theory claims that foreign policy makers will expend more risks to avoid perceived losses to national security than they will to realize gains in state power or resources. Recently, the approach has been persuasively used to investigate great power foreign policy and war and peace decision making.

New Trends in The Study of Foreign Policy

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, IR scholars have increasingly challenged the secularized nature of IR theory and have endorsed new theoretical approaches that explicitly include the religious dimensions of social and political life. Recent work on foreign policy has picked up on this theme. For example, in the context of the United States, scholars have considered how U.S. foreign policy has reflected the ebbs and flows in the political fortunes of various Christian religious dominations and how the foreign policy decision to go to war in Iraq in March 2003 was influenced by President George W. Bush’s religious beliefs and the religiously based views of other prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration. Outside of the U.S. context, new work investigates how religious opposition groups have influenced Israel’s capacity to pursue peace making as a foreign policy option and whether religious viewpoints dominate the foreign policies of states in the Muslim world. Non-Western states may fuse religion and the state in ways that are markedly different from the liberal secular model. Accordingly, foreign policy researchers should continue to investigate whether and how religiously motivated actors and religiously based institutions influence foreign policy decision making and outcomes in polities characterized by religion in the public sphere.

In addition to focusing on culture and religion, foreign policy analysts must further investigate the nature of foreign policy change. While a number of studies of foreign policy change have been recently published, more work needs to be done. In light of the major shift in U.S. foreign policy sparked by the September 11 attacks—changes that continue to have short and long-term consequences for both the United States and IR—scholars of foreign policy need to continue to develop cross-national models that tell us how domestic and international variables contribute to large-scale foreign policy change. We need to better understand the conditions that give rise to changes in national security and economic strategies and the circumstances under which decision makers learn and are then able to alter established foreign policy platforms: do the same domestic and international variables that influence the initial choice among a set of foreign policy options also influence the decision to alter foreign policy course? Does it matter if foreign policy change is abrupt or not?

Last, while the study of domestic-level influences on foreign policy has a long pedigree, scholars of foreign policy have recently begun to study the reverse causal arrow by considering the impact of foreign policies on domestic politics, including state-societal relations and state-building and institutional development. Driven as much by theoretical interests as by bipartisan U.S. support for democracy promotion abroad, particularly since the end of the cold war, foreign policy analysts have investigated the success of U.S. policies to support democracy in different global regions and how regime change can best be achieved. Outside of the U.S. context, scholars have considered how the European Union’s foreign policies have influenced domestic political reforms and church-state relations in those states seeking European Union membership, as in the case of Turkey. Recent work in the subfield has also investigated the impact of regional security conditions on the propensity for states to democratize. A key finding in this growing literature is that foreign policies that support peaceful means of regional conflict resolution can influence not only the likelihood of war but also domestic institutional development, civil-military relations, and bargaining outcomes among domestic political actors. Future work in the subfield should continue to explore how different foreign policy choices, such as decisions to pursue external balancing (e.g., alliances) versus internal balancing (e.g., nuclear weapons programs), influence domestic political outcomes over time.

Future work on foreign policy must continue to advance in these areas while also encouraging the application of theories and perspectives to multiple states across regions and historical time. Typically, work on foreign policy focuses on just one country. The subfield boasts many seminal and new studies of the foreign policy decision-making process and foreign policy outcomes in countries as diverse as Israel, China, Japan, Cuba, and many more. A comparative study, however, permits multiple tests of theoretical propositions and enables findings to cumulate across states with disparate histories, regime types, and identities. Several new studies aim to compare and contrast the foreign policies of different states. Yet compared with single-country analyses, studies of comparative foreign policy are few and far between. More work remains to be done on how foreign policy is both similar and different across a diverse range of international actors. This will be facilitated by regional and country-specific experts’ collaborating with foreign policy and IR theorists, as well as students of comparative politics, to develop models that apply outside of the U.S. context and that are meaningful and robust for the changing and volatile nature of contemporary IR.

References:

• Allison, Graham. The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.
• Elman, Colin. “Horses for Courses:Why Not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy?” Security Studies 6, no. 1 (1996): 7–53.
• Elman, Miriam Fendius. “Does Democracy Tame the Radicals? Lessons from Israel’s Jewish Religious Political Parties.” Asian Security 4, no. 1 (2008): 79–99.
• “The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in Its Own Backyard.” British Journal of Political Science 25 (April 1995): 171–217.
• Farnham, Barbara. “The Theory of Democratic Peace and Threat Perception.” International Studies Quarterly 47, no. 3 (September 2003): 395–415.
• George, Alexander. “The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-making.” International Studies Quarterly 13 (1969): 190–222.
• Hagan, Joe D. Political Opposition and Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, Colo.:Westview, 1993.
• Hermann, Margaret G., and Charles W. Kegley Jr. “Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology.” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 4 (December 1995): 511–534.
• Hopf,Ted. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow 1955 and 1999. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002.
• Jervis, Robert. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976.
• Levy, Jack S. “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield.” International Organization 48 (1994): 279–312.
• McDermott, Rose. Risk-taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
• Mead,Walter Russell. “God’s Country?” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 5 (2006): 24–43.
• Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M.Walt. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2007.
• Neack, Laura. The New Foreign Policy: US and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002.
• Page, Benjamin I. The Foreign Policy Disconnect:What Americans Want from Our Leaders but Don’t Get. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
• Risse-Kappen,Thomas. “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies.” World Politics 43 (1991): 479–512.
• Shaffer, Brenda, ed. The Limits of Culture: Islam and Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
• Vertzberger,Yaacov. The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990.
• Walker, Stephen G., and Mark Schafer. “Belief Systems as Causal Mechanisms in World Politics: An Overview of Operational Code Analysis.” In Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis, edited by S. G.Walker and M. Schafer. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House, 1979.

Reader Interactions

American Foreign Policy Research Paper

View sample American Foreign Policy Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science  research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic writing, editing, proofreading, and problem solving services, get 10% off with 24start discount code, ii. exogenous influences: the role of the united states in international affairs, iii. endogenous influences, a. the president and american foreign policy, b. congress and american foreign policy, c. the bureaucracy and american foreign policy, d. public opinion and american foreign policy, iv. conclusion.

American foreign policy has fluctuated throughout the existence of the United States, stemming from the influence of exogenous dynamics and significant watersheds felt throughout the international system as well as endogenous changes and influences within the American government. Noteworthy declarations such as the Monroe Doctrine, international conflicts such as the Spanish-American War, World War II, and the cold war as well as regional conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Korean War significantly influenced American foreign policy. Currently, the events of September 11, 2001, represent the major exogenous watershed that influenced the foreign policy decision-making of the U.S. government. In addition to the exogenous dynamics that have been decisive in American foreign policy, the endogenous aspects of the U.S. government such as the president, Congress, the bureaucracy, and American public opinion have considerable influence in foreign policy decision making.

This research paper reviews selected seminal literature regarding American foreign policy and its exogenous and endogenous influences. Although exogenous issues are highly significant to the various objectives of American foreign policy, this research paper only briefly highlights the major exogenous watersheds and focuses more substantially on four endogenous dynamics that impact American foreign policy and foreign policy decision making. The paper begins with a brief focus of the shift of American foreign policy from isolationism to internationalism and how the Spanish-American War, World War II, the cold war, and the events of September 11, 2001, influenced this shift of American foreign policy. The paper then concentrates on the endogenous dynamics, beginning with an analysis of the executive branch and its effects over the direction and decision making of American foreign policy as well as the effects of the controversial War Powers Act on the presidential role as a foreign policy decision maker. Second, the focus shifts to the legislative branch and its reactive role regarding American foreign policy as well as the possibility of congresspersons adopting a proactive role to influence the direction of foreign policy decision making concerning particular issues. Third, this research paper analyzes how bureaucratic politics affect American foreign policy by highlighting the three models introduced in Graham Allison’s (1971) classic work, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, regarding the effects of bureaucracy on foreign policy decision making. Finally, this research paper concludes with a concentration on the effects of public opinion on American foreign policy. This section briefly highlights the theories of classical realist and liberal political thinkers concerning the effects of public opinion on foreign policy as well as a focus on the variations of the effect of public opinion on foreign policy through a historical analysis.

After the American Revolution and the establishment of the United States as a nation-state, the United States conducted itself in a fashion dissimilar to the countries in Europe regarding its role in international affairs. Whereas countries such as England, France, and Spain conducted an interventionist international foreign policy, the United States preferred an isolationist route concerning international affairs and focused primarily within its own borders. In 1823, this strategy expanded from the borders of the United States to incorporate the affairs of the entire Western hemisphere. President James Monroe announced a new shift in American foreign policy, namely the Monroe Doctrine, which established a separate sphere of influence for the United States and the Americas versus the European sphere of influence. Furthermore, the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would perceive any attempt by the European powers to exert their influence or establish a colonial presence into the Western sphere of influence as an act of aggression. Finally, the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would not interfere within European affairs within their sphere of influence and would not intervene within established European colonies within the Americas. Although the United States did not possess the military means to defend a declaration of this magnitude, the British accepted the assertion of U.S. power since they preferred to drive out the Spanish from the Western hemisphere and viewed this proclamation as a method of attaining this goal. More important, the Monroe Doctrine represents a major shift in American foreign policy, which continued to remain isolationist from the international scope but expanded its sphere of influence to all of the Western hemisphere (Kissinger, 1994; Papp, Johnson, & Endicott, 2005).

The Spanish-American War also represented an important stage in American foreign policy since the entry of the United States in the conflict signified a move of the United States becoming an emerging power in international affairs. Although the United States refrained from becoming an international power implicated in the alliance system and continued to adhere to isolationism and unilateralism after the Spanish-American War, the decision to declare war on Spain had two major implications. First, it denoted the initial entry of the United States into world affairs. Although the United States would continue to internally debate and argue over whether American foreign policy should remain isolationist or shift toward an internationalist foreign policy for many years, the United States entered into several international conflicts and diplomatic interactions with other countries after the Spanish-American War. Second, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the United States seized possession over the former Spanish colonies of Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Formerly, the United States was exclusively an isolationist country; however, now the United States became a colonial power and expanded its interests to other hemispheres (Papp et al., 2005).

Although the United States gained colonial territories in other hemispheres, most Americans did not agree with the idea of U.S. involvement in world affairs. This debate continued during World War I as well as during the interwar years as demonstrated in the aftermath of World War I. President Woodrow Wilson was one of the key figures in the formulation of the Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of the League of Nations; however, Americans, particularly the senators who voted against the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, still believed that the United States should adhere to a foreign policy devoted to isolationism and unilateralism whereas the Treaty of Versailles strongly espoused internationalism and collective security (Kissinger, 1994; Papp et al., 2005). The debate over the role of the United States in world affairs persisted into World War II until December 7, 1941, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. At this point, the United States entered into World War II, and American foreign policy would never be the same.

With the entry of the United States into World War II, the American foreign policy shifted to one of multilateralism and internationalist in scope. This particularly was demonstrated with the establishment of the United Nations and the passage of the Bretton Woods Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Furthermore, the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty with several other countries, creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance, on April 4, 1949. The involvement of the United States in the establishment of these organizations and future participation within the organizations signified that American foreign policy had surpassed isolationism and was now firmly entrenched in internationalism and multilateralism (Ambrose & Brinkley, 1997).

After the end of World War II, world affairs had changed immensely as the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the world powers or superpowers in the international system.Although the countries had been tenuous allies during World War II, competing political ideological and national interest differences soon forced a wedge between the countries, and the international system was greatly affected by the bipolar world established during the cold war. During the cold war, American foreign policy continued to be focused on internationalism and multilateralism, but confronted with an enduring power struggle with the Soviet Union, American foreign policy focused on the policy of containment as well. Devised by George F. Kennan, the policy of containment sought to thwart the spread of Communism to non-Communist countries throughout the world. As the Soviet Union expanded its influence to satellite countries with the spread of Communism, the United States also increased its area of influence to various countries throughout the world in an effort to counter the Soviets (Ambrose&Brinkley, 1997; Kennan, 1984). By contributing military and economic support to so-called anti-Communist countries, the United States focused on preventing the spread of Communism to other countries throughout the world and averting a domino effect occurring where the loss of one country to Communism would lead to the further loss of neighboring countries to Communism. Although the United States and the Soviet Union did not engage in direct military warfare, the superpowers engaged indirectly through proxy wars in their support of satellite countries. In addition to the indirect interaction through proxy wars, nuclear deterrence became a significant aspect of the cold war as the United States and the Soviet Union accumulated substantial stockpiles of nuclear weapons as a method of ensuring their respective state security. Although both countries possessed the weapons, neither of the countries would employ the use of nuclear weapons because leaders understood the drastic effects to both countries if the weapons were deployed (Ambrose & Brinkley, 1997; Kissinger, 1994; Mingst, 2008).

Although American foreign policy changed to cope with new challenges arising from a post–cold war international environment, the next significant watershed in American foreign policy stemmed from the events of September 11, 2001. After the terrorist attack against the United States by members of al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden, President George W. Bush responded by shifting American foreign policy to a global war on terrorism, which commenced with the launching of an attack against Afghanistan for harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda. In 2003, the war on terrorism expanded to include the Republic of Iraq since the United States was convinced that Saddam Hussein presented a terrorist threat through the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorist organizations (Mingst, 2008). Although Hussein was overthrown from power and no weapons of mass destruction were found, American foreign policy continues to be greatly affected by the war on terrorism since the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq continue into the second decade of the 21st century.

The U.S. president and executive branch arguably wield the largest amount of power in regard to American foreign policy. Although Congress and the bureaucracy of the national government can certainly affect how foreign policy is conducted, the executive branch by far has the most control over foreign affairs (Peterson, 1994). Originally, this was not what the framers intended when designing the U.S. Constitution; however, the presidential powers regarding foreign policy have increased significantly since the founding of the United States. Specifically, the framers went to great lengths to ensure that Congress controlled the decision to go to war by conferring the power to declare war solely to Congress. On the other hand, the president exercises widespread authority in times of crisis, but the overall decision to initiate war was left in control of Congress (Edwards & Wayne, 2006; Pika & Maltese, 2008). Therefore, the U.S. Constitution established a shared power regarding issues of war between the executive and legislative branches. Although this shared power was established in the U.S. Constitution, historical precedent demonstrates that the power of the president has been advanced significantly, specifically during times of war and crisis, at the expense of congressional power. Furthermore, after the declaration of war has been made, the president, acting in his role as the commander in chief, is granted extensive power based on Article II of the U.S. Constitution and congressional delegations of authority (Pika & Maltese).

In addition to issues concerning war and crisis, the president has several other powers in regard to foreign policy, such as diplomatic treaties, presidential appointments, and executive agreements. According to the U.S. Constitution, the president may enter into international diplomatic treaties with other countries; however, the president must consult with the Senate concerning the treaty. In addition, the treaty must then be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In general, international treaties have been approved without amendment by the Senate, with a few exceptions such as the Versailles Treaty after World War I. This may also be related to the fact that many have been withdrawn by presidents who anticipated defeat due to a lack of congressional support as displayed with President George W. Bush and the Kyoto Protocol.

On March 28, 2001, President Bush declared that the United States would not implement the Kyoto Protocol regarding combating global warming through a reduction of greenhouse gases. Although it appeared that Bush made a dramatic turn in U.S. policy decision making, Congress had not supported this direction for some time. This particularly began in July 1997, when the U.S. Senate unanimously approved Senate Resolution 98, stating that it would not sanction a global climate treaty that would damage the U.S. economy or that failed to compel the reduction of emissions within the same time period for both developing countries and developed countries. Furthermore, even when President Clinton agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, he did not present the treaty to the Senate for ratification because he was aware of the lack of support for the treaty (Fletcher, 2000).

The president may also appoint several key positions subject to Senate confirmation. According to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Senate must confirm presidential diplomatic appointments such as ambassadors to foreign countries but more important the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence. This is significant to American foreign policy given that these three positions are highly influential to the course of the administration’s foreign policy (Edwards & Wayne, 2006; Pika & Maltese, 2008).

Presidents may also affect foreign policy through executive agreements, which allow them to forego the process of the congressional ratification process. Specifically, an executive agreement is a pact between the U.S. president and the head of state of the other country, which does not necessitate the ratification of the U.S. Senate. Since the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the use of executive agreements has increased immensely, which may reflect an attempt to evade the congressional ratification process (Edwards & Wayne, 2006).

In 1973, Congress attempted to strike back at the rampant conduct of the Lyndon B. Johnson administration during the Vietnam War through the establishment of the War Powers Act. Although the passage of the War Powers Act was delayed until the term of President Richard Nixon, it symbolized an attempt of Congress to strengthen its powers in the realm of foreign policy decision making as well as to establish an effective restraint against the executive branch and its unbridled control in decision making regarding the American foreign policy and the deployment of American troops in a hostile environment. After its passage, President Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act; however, Congress was able to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto. Although the necessary majority was achieved, the bill itself was weakened compared with its original overall objectives in the process of attaining a majority in the House of Representatives to override the veto (Fisher, 2006).

Specifically, according to the resolution, the president may deploy American military troops overseas for a 60-day period during peacetime prior to obtaining congressional approval for the action and may appeal to Congress for an extension period of up to 90 days. After the 60-day period, if Congress does not give approval for the deployment, the president has 30 days to extract the troops. It is debatable whether the War Powers Act indeed fulfills its original intentions. Louis Fisher (2006) argues that the 60-day period itself is a much larger expansion of power than the original framers of the bill intended to grant the president. In addition, the resolution requires the president at all possible times to confer with Congress regarding the action prior deployment of the American military into a hostile environment as well as to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of the deployment. The 60-day window actually begins when the president reports to Congress concerning the deployment; however, it is typically reported in a general manner. This allows for the president to conduct foreign policy endeavors without the advice and consent of Congress, or what Fisher calls a “collective judgment of the branches” (pp. 279–280). Therefore, it is highly debatable whether the War Powers Act provides a restraint against presidential adventurism and actually satisfies the intentions of the original framers of the resolution. Furthermore, since the passage of the War Powers Act, previous presidents asserted that it unconstitutionally limits them from performing their duties as commander in chief to provide defense. To overcome this limitation, they have interpreted the Constitution in a flexible manner, specifically in regard to the requirements for reporting and consulting with Congress (Edwards & Wayne, 2006).

Deemed the face of the nation for reasons of international visibility, it is commonly assumed that the majority of foreign policy making is conducted by the president and the executive branch; however, this view overlooks the significant influence and power that the legislative branch wields over American foreign policy. First, as stated in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. Second, Congress also possesses the power of the purse, which may be used as a tool to influence the executive branch on how foreign policy is conducted. Third, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president may negotiate a diplomatic treaty only with the support of a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Fourth, Congress also advises and consents to presidential appointments such as ambassadors and consuls. Through these listed means as well as others, Congress has a significant influence over the direction of foreign policy decision making.

Although in each of these previously listed manners Congress acts in a reactive manner to the foreign policy endeavors of the president and the executive branch, Ralph Carter and James Scott (2009) suggest a theory of congressional foreign policy entrepreneurship in which congresspersons may be proactive in their foreign policy influence ventures; specifically, they may act as what are termed foreign policy entrepreneurs. In this manner, the congressperson chooses to lead the development of foreign policy by attempting to influence the foreign policy of a particular issue outside the desires of the current administration for a continuous period of time. Specifically, this means that the congressperson must engage in more than one attempt of foreign policy entrepreneurship.

A congressperson becomes a foreign policy entrepreneur when he or she engages in developing a new policy regarding a foreign policy issue. This decision may specifically occur during a policy vacuum, a period where there is no policy regarding the issue, or during a policy correction, when the congressperson feels that the current policy is flawed. Furthermore, in a proactive approach, the congressperson does not wait for the president to take action regarding a foreign policy matter or inform the party or country on his or her stance regarding the affair; rather, the congressperson acts on the matter proactively in an attempt to influence foreign policy decision making. Specifically, the congressperson can introduce new legislation regarding the foreign policy issue, offer amendments to existing legislation, conduct policy research, travel to determine the realities of the issue, or hold hearings to publicize the foreign policy issue that he or she is promoting (Carter & Scott, 2009).

Carter and Scott (2009) identify that a congressperson may decide to progress in this fashion for several reasons. First, this pursuit may not be completely influenced by a desire for reelection because foreign policy rarely directly affects the constituency of a congressperson. On the other hand, if a congressperson has a rather large presence of a particular ethnic group within his or her district, this may influence the decision to proceed with actions to influence the foreign policy regarding the respective country of the ethnicity of the constituency. Second, the congressperson may pursue this issue in order to gain respect and influence within Congress. He or she may gain a reputation for expertise in the subject, which may assist him or her in garnering influence in Congress. Third, the congressperson may have a personal policy position regarding the issue. This may stem from core values, personal experiences, and family experiences. The core values of a congressperson may come from his or her respective morality as well as the influence of particular issues that are important to the congressperson. The personal experiences of a congressperson may influence him or her to pursue a particular policy since he or she may have an expertise regarding the issue. Family experiences may also motivate a congressperson to pursue a policy since many have first- or second-generation family members.

To understand the theory of foreign policy entrepreneurship, Carter and Scott (2009) draw on John Kingdon (1995) and his ideas regarding foreign policy entrepreneurs in his work, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. According to Kingdon, a congressperson’s decision to engage in foreign policy entrepreneurship may shape policy windows. First, policy making is conducted in the middle of a “problem stream” where those within the government as well as the public recognize a particular problem. During a problem stream, the foreign policy entrepreneur must specifically define the problem in order to enhance the awareness of the policy problem to others. The term policy stream refers to potential solutions to the policy problem, which are developed by policy experts. Finally, the term political stream refers to a change in conditions or specifically to when key actors within the governments and institutions as well as society change in their disposition toward the issue. If the problem stream, policy stream, and political stream correspond at the same time, the policy window will open and the foreign policy entrepreneur will have the opportunity to construct changes regarding the particular policy (Kingdon, as cited in Carter & Scott).

When this process occurs and foreign policy entrepreneurs have an opportunity to create policy changes, the success of their endeavors is influenced by the structural features to include which house of Congress they serve in, if they hold a position on a policy-appropriate committee, which political party they are members of, whether they hold party leadership positions, and whether they are senior congresspersons. Once congresspersons decide to engage in foreign policy entrepreneurship, they will attempt to frame the policy issue to others in order to gain their support and ensure the success of their endeavor. Furthermore, they will make contact with a senior administration official to seek a change in the particular policy, to determine whether to go public with the issue, or possibly to conduct formal measures in order to seek to adopt legislation regarding the policy matter (Carter & Scott, 2009).

Through the theory of foreign policy entrepreneurs, Carter and Scott demonstrate how Congress can project influence on foreign policy creation in a proactive manner as opposed to a reactive manner as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution and by established precedents, where the executive branch essentially produces the foreign policy initiative. Although the constitutional powers established for the legislature are powerful and influential in American foreign policy, the process of foreign policy entrepreneurship allows the congressperson to endorse foreign policy issues and initiatives that are significant to him or her. Overall, foreign policy entrepreneurship is becoming a more common practice among congresspersons, which will undoubtedly affect the process of foreign policy creation in the future.

In Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Graham Allison (1971) analyzes the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 and the consequent naval blockade of Cuba by developing three models or frames of reference in order to highlight the understanding of foreign policy decision making: the rational actor model (RAM), the organizational behavior model (OBM), and the governmental politics model (GPM). Although there is some overlap within the three models, each model represents a distinctive manner of the effect of the bureaucracy on foreign policy decision-making.

The first model is the RAM, where a researcher observes the situation as the state itself as a single entity thinking and acting in unison. In this manner, the state is the key actor and acts in a rational manner. Security is the highest priority of the state and influences various other objectives respective to the state. The state will then select the preference that coincides with the highest of its respective objectives. Therefore, the state is value maximizing in its actions. Allison states that this approach to understanding foreign policy decision making is the most common (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

Furthermore, the state’s decision of proceeding with an action is determined by several factors: objectives, perceptions of other options, an assessment of the consequences of their actions, and an overall evaluation of each consequence. The culmination of these noted elements will amount to an increase or a decrease to the cost of an alternative option, which ultimately affects whether the decision maker uses the respective option, essentially a cost–benefit analysis. In the end, the decision of the state is viewed as a unified national government action where the state is acting as a single, rational actor in pursuit of the state’s national interest. In the RAM, the elaborate interworkings of government and various bureaucratic missions and goals are not stressed on since the state is viewed as the sole significant entity functioning to pursue a cohesive, uncontested national interest (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

The second model is the OBM. Here, in contrast to the RAM, decisions are depicted as the product of the collaboration of large governmental organizations, which each tend to conduct themselves according to their own standard operating procedures (or SOPs), yielding standard behaviors. Within this model, the single-state decision maker is no longer the key decision-making actor; rather, the loosely associated governmental organizations themselves are the central actor(s) guided by permanent SOPs that are predetermined (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

In the OBM, Allison highlights the effect of governmental organizations on foreign policy decision making whereby responsibility for various areas of government is divided among the large organizations. Thus, whereas the RAM depicts decision making conducted by the state as a single entity, the OBM displays decision making as an output of numerous relevant governmental organizations, which may be coordinated by government leaders. To organize this process, the governmental organizations developed SOPs, which are previously established for each organization. The organization, however, may evolve over time because of learning or radically change as a reaction to a major crisis facing the country. In other words, rather than a rational decision-making process, according to this model decisions are the consequence of various organizations within the government acting according to their SOPs, or slight modifications of these, in response to problems. Decisions are not depicted as rational, and therefore it is not assumed to be any effort to reach an optimal decision (as in the RAM), but instead decisions are determined by what an organization deems feasible and yet reasonably responsive to the problem (Allison, 1969, 1971; Allison & Zelikow, 1999).

The third model is the GPM, in which decisions are viewed as the outcome of the bargaining among the actors within government. In this model, the leaders and other individuals within the various governmental organizations are actors within the game of bureaucratic politics who seek to advance their objectives, which are formed by national, organizational, and personal goals (Allison, 1969, 1971). Such goals may include service to the nation but also personal objectives such as career advancement. The GPM depicts politics as a game in which individuals seek to steal the limelight from colleagues at other departments, where subordinates seek to either support or subvert the careers of their bosses, and so on. This model, then, suggests that political decisions are the outcome of complex bargaining games within and across the various organizations that together constitute the national government.

In other words, whereas the RAM viewed decision making as performed by the state and the OBM perceived decision making as the outputs of various governmental organizations, the GPM identifies decision making as a product of bureaucratic politics with the top central organizational leaders as the key players of the game. Within the game, the leaders undoubtedly engage in disagreement, compromise, and bargaining over what direction the government should proceed in regarding foreign policy decisions since each leader has his or her own personal ideas and goals as well as their respective organizational objectives to endorse. Furthermore, the personalities of the leaders become significant to the successfulness of the actor to project his or her position and compel the other actors to agree with his or her position. Allison also suggests that the actor’s ability to be successful in the game depends on his or her power, which is a combination of bargaining advantages, the skill and will of the actor in using bargaining advantages, and the opinions of other actors regarding the bargaining advantages and the skill and will of the actor to use them. In sum, as one moves from the RAM via the OBM to the GPM, the image of how decisions are made becomes increasingly more messy and less an orderly and rational process.

Allison’s seminal work has spawned subsequent generations of scholars who have produced various theories about foreign policy decision making (e.g., Garrison, 1999, 2001; George, 1980; George & George, 1998; Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 1997; Janis, 1983; Kowert, 2002). What these theories have in common is a recognition that decision making rarely proceeds as orderly as the RAM would suggest. These theories and frameworks share in common an attempt to better understand how the perceptions and cognitions of decision makers, as well as the dynamics among small groups, among the various branches of government, and interactions with the wider domestic audience shape the decision-making process. Some of these theories are discussed in greater detail in Research Paper on Foreign Policy Analysis.

A discussion of American foreign policy cannot be entirely fulfilled without concentrating on the effect of public opinion on American foreign policy. Holsti (1992, 1996) identifies three watersheds that ultimately shaped the relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy: World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. The focus on the effect of public opinion truly commenced after World War I, when public opinion played a role in the decision making of how to create international order in the post–World War I period. The significance of World War II came as scientific polling of public opinion began, allowing for a much more advanced empirical investigation into the opinions of the American public. Finally, the Vietnam War as well as the outcomes after the Vietnam War initiated another focus on the public opinion and its effect on American foreign policy.

Public opinion has been viewed in a disparate manner by liberal and realist classical theorists. Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and other theorists suggested that given the structure of a democracy, public opinion provides a safeguard on the foreign policy desires of a government. In this manner, the mystery of foreign affairs is revealed, governments are held accountable for their actions, and public opinion is viewed as the solution to some of the dilemmas of government. However, in a nondemocracy such as a monarchy or a totalitarian government, foreign policy may be conducted without regard to public opinion and in the direction to the whims of the monarch or tyrant. In this manner, there is a lack of constraints on the government, and no accountability is given to the public, allowing the leader to conduct foreign policy in a manner to his or her choosing (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Conversely, realists perceived public opinion as a challenge to the foreign policy decision making of governments. Whereas the liberal school of thought viewed public opinion as an integral aspect of foreign policy, realists such as Hans Morgenthau and others questioned the ability of the public to contribute to foreign policy decision making. First, they considered the public as being too focused on their daily lives and too far removed from the issues concerning foreign policy. Essentially, the public could not understand the essential issues of foreign policy and consequently could not make an effectual contribution to foreign policy decision making. Second, the public was viewed as irrational, passionate, and emotional, which would lead to ineffective decision making and could possibly jeopardize the country if allowed to contribute to foreign policy. Finally, realists viewed the actual process of foreign policy decision making and diplomacy as one based on secrecy, accommodation, and speed. To have the public involved in the process of foreign policy decision making would be counter to the listed necessary traits and could endanger the state itself or the international system within which it resides (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson hoped to develop a new world order centering on democracy and diplomacy among countries. In this vision, Wilson and his cabinet possessed a liberal outlook on the relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy. In holding this viewpoint, they anticipated a significant and increased role for the public in diplomacy and foreign affairs. On the other hand, other figures such as Walter Lippmann, a journalist, held an opposing view of public opinion and its relationship with foreign policy than Wilson and his cabinet. Espousing realist rhetoric, Lippmann wrote in his critiques of liberalism that the public was too interested in their daily lives and fulfilling their most pressing needs and desires to become informed about foreign policy affairs. Furthermore, the public was too far removed from the events of foreign affairs to develop an informed opinion of the issue, and the media was unable to provide for this gap of knowledge (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

The period of World War II and its aftermath produced an intensification of scientific public-opinion polling. During this period, polling organizations attempted to ascertain the opinion of the American public regarding a major concern of U.S. policymakers: Should the United States remain an isolationist from world affairs, or should it become an active player? From the information attained from public-opinion polling during the post–World War II period and prior to the VietnamWar, three main ideas were suggested. First, public opinion is highly volatile. In their writings, Lippmann (1925) and Gabriel Almond (1950) depicted the public as passion driven, moody, and volatile. In addition to this observation, polling data illustrated an American public that was surprisingly ignorant of facts and information essential to foreign affairs. Second, public opinion lacks structure and coherence. Early research and studies predicted that the American public would fluctuate between support for the internationalist viewpoint and support for the isolationist viewpoint regarding foreign affairs, similar to the liberal viewpoint versus the conservative viewpoint regarding domestic affairs. In 1964, however, Philip Converse published a study that suggested a different finding. Contrary to the previous belief that a political spectrum of foreign policy support existed, Converse stated that theAmerican public lacked a coherent structure in their political beliefs and typically, their beliefs held a brief impact on their views regarding foreign affairs. Third, public opinion has limited impact on foreign policy. In the immediate post–World War II period, policymakers were split on the liberal–realist divide concerning the effectiveness of the American public opinion on foreign policy. However, in the 1960s, policymakers now viewed public opinion as having little to no impact on foreign policy decision making. In fact, studies during this period displayed that the opinion of constituencies regarding foreign affairs had little influence over their congresspersons, and other studies proposed that the president had an unbridled impact on foreign policy decision making (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

The Vietnam War provided the third watershed regarding public opinion and American foreign policy. Within this period, the relationship between public opinion andAmerican foreign policy gained a renewed significance as many realists including Lippmann questioned the belief of an imperial presidency and a limited impact of public opinion on foreign policy. Furthermore, more polling organizations with a narrower focus in contrast to the general surveys of Gallup were created and devised their surveys in a simpler yet more extensive and in depth manner. Specifically, these surveys focused on public opinion regarding foreign policy in Vietnam, which revealed support for the administration’s foreign policy endeavors yet also supported an end to the Vietnam War (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Through the findings of the new public opinion information, the three main ideas criticizing the American public were challenged. First, regarding the idea that the American public opinion is volatile, new studies found that the preceding research and surveys were conducted in a flawed manner that may have been the source of the earlier propositions. By modifying their methodology and research approaches, the new studies found that the American public was remarkably stable in their opinions regarding foreign policy yet remained poorly informed concerning facts, geography, politics, and foreign policy. Second, the claim that the American public lacks structure and coherence also suffered from similar methodological issues, and once researchers modified their methodological approaches, this created a split in support for and challenges against Philip Converse’s (1964) work on mass belief systems. Furthermore, several studies have questioned Converse’s results and found that public opinion does not adhere to an internationalist-isolationist dimension. Since this point, numerous studies have suggested various types of foreign policy attitudes rather than the earlier internationalist–isolationist dimension. Current research has also found that although the American public typically lacks complete information concerning foreign policy, they use simple heuristics in order to compensate for the incomplete knowledge (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Regarding the claim that public opinion has limited impact on foreign policy, when evidence arose of a relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy, many scholars and analysts continued to disagree that there was a connection between the two. They continued to remain steadfast to the argument that public opinion has no impact on foreign policy, and if any relationship existed, it could be explained as an attempt by the executive to direct public opinion in support of their foreign policy aspirations. To an extent, this was true; however, there were numerous cases of unsuccessful bids for public support. Furthermore, this did not explain the converse relationship. Several studies suggested that in the midst of foreign policy decision making, presidents often considered the postaction response of the American public, which influenced their decisions. This has also been a factor in foreign policy decision making since the public may vote retroactively, and a foreign policy failure may doom the incumbent candidate’s bid for reelection. In addition, according to many public opinion officials for the U.S. government, the public has not been viewed as an entity that may be influenced; rather, public opinion has been a significant explanatory variable in presidential decision making regarding foreign policy. Although the causal linkage between public opinion and American foreign policy has yet to be conclusively established, it has been demonstrated that public opinion has an impact on foreign policy decision making (Holsti, 1992, 1996).

Robert Entman (2004) also advocates a noteworthy relationship between public opinion and American foreign policy. Where earlier models suggested that either public opinion has no effect on American foreign policy or a national government holds influence over public opinion and Holsti (1992, 1996) suggested that the American public has an influence over foreign policy decision making, Entman proposes a dual relationship between the concepts. Specifically, he implies that there is a simultaneous interaction between the concepts since the president attempts to sway the public to agree with his foreign policy endeavors while the public also interacts with the president as they inform the executive branch what they are prepared to tolerate regarding the American foreign policy endeavors. In this model, the interaction between the national government and theAmerican public is not a top-down or bottom-up relationship; rather, it is flowing in both directions in a manner that both levels provide information to the other.

As demonstrated in this research paper, American foreign policy is not characterized by the direction of a single leader or a cohesive, uncontested national interest but rather a complex web of interactions among numerous actors pursuing the various missions and goals of their respective agencies. It is shaped and determined by several facets to include endogenous factors such as the presidency, Congress, the bureaucracy, and American public opinion as well as significant exogenous factors such as the Spanish-American War, World War II, the cold war, and the events on September 11, 2001. Although many have argued that the executive branch has carte blanche in the realm of foreign affairs, there are several constraints on its power through the delegation of powers in the U.S. Constitution as well as the numerous checks on presidential power by Congress. Furthermore, this research paper has displayed that there are other actors who have considerable influence and power in American foreign policy, such as Congress, the bureaucracy, and the American public. Overall, this research paper has demonstrated that American foreign policy has transformed over time through several influences and arguably will continue to evolve based on endogenous factors within the United States as well as exogenous influences in the international system.

Bibliography:

• Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 689 718.
• Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
• Almond, G. (1950). The American people and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt Brace.
• Ambrose, S. E., & Brinkley, D. G. (1997). Rise to globalism: American foreign policy since 1938 (8th ed.). New York: Penguin.
• Carter, R. G., & Scott, J. M. (2009). Choosing to lead: Understanding congressional foreign policy entrepreneurs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.
• Edwards, G. C., III, &Wayne, S. J. (2006). Presidential leadership: Politics and policy making (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
• Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Fisher, L. (2006). What is the appropriate role of Congress in national security policy? In G. C. Edwards III (Ed.), Readings in presidential politics (pp. 263-290). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Fletcher, S. R. (2000). Global climate change: The Kyoto Protocol (CRS Report for Congress No. RL30692). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
• Garrison, J. A. (1999). Games advisors play: Foreign policy in the Nixon and Carter administrations. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
• Garrison, J. A. (2001). Framing foreign policy alternatives in the inner circle: The president, his advisors, and the struggle for the arms control agenda. Political Psychology, 22(4), 775-807.
• George, A. L. (1980). Presidential decisionmaking in foreign pol icy: The effective use of information and advice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• George, A. L., & George, J. L. (1998). Presidential personality and performance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Hart, P., Stern, E. K., & Sundelius, B. (1997). Beyond group think: Political group dynamics and foreign policy making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Holsti, O. R. (1992). Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond Lippmann consensus Mershon series: Research programs and debates. International Studies Quarterly, 36, 439-466.
• Holsti, O. R. (1996). Public opinion and American foreign pol icy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Kennan, G. F. (1984). American diplomacy (Expanded ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
• Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York: Touchstone.
• Kowert, P. A. (2002). Groupthink or deadlock: When do leaders learn from their advisors? Albany: SUNY Press.
• Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Harcourt Brace.
• Mingst, K.A. (2008). Essentials of international relations (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
• Papp, D. S., Johnson, L. K.,&Endicott, J. (2005). American foreign policy: History, politics, and policy. New York: Longman.
• Peterson, P. E. (1994). The president’s dominance in foreign policy making. Political Research Quarterly, 109, 215-234.
• Pika, J. A., & Maltese, J. A. (2008). The politics of the presidency (7th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Foreign Affairs

Research on U.S. Foreign Policy

Foreign affairs is a key issue in United States history. The Department of State is designated to lead in the overall direction, coordination, and supervision of American foreign policy and foreign relations, but records relating to your topic might be found among the files of other agencies, too. Since World War II, a community of agencies has evolved to deal specifically with foreign policy issues. In addition, many other agencies have taken on important roles in American national security affairs. The subject and focus of your research will determine the most appropriate records for you to use.

Much policy development takes place in the White House and is documented in the files of the Presidents and their extended staffs. The records and files of all Presidents since Herbert Hoover are located in the Presidential Libraries operated by the National Archives and Records Administration. In addition to White House files, the Libraries hold the files of the National Security Council and its staff and other high-level organizations.

Congress also has a role in American foreign policy. The Senate provides advice and consent to all treaties, and many committees have oversight on issues relating to foreign affairs. Of most importance are the records of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The work of other committees also may touch on foreign relations matters and Congress has established numerous temporary committees and sub-committees to study special issues and matters relating to U.S. foreign affairs.

Assistance from NARA Staff

As noted in the FAQ mentioned above, communicating with the Reference Staff at the National Archives before you visit is likely to improve the results of your research experience. This is especially true in the following instances: (1) if the records are dated from the 1960s and later; (2) if you are dealing with agencies involved with foreign affairs, intelligence, and law enforcement; (3) if you do not have precise file number citations to the files of various agencies or National Archives record group and entry numbers; (4) or if you are unsure that records exist.

While the reference staff cannot undertake your research for you, they can do some preliminary work in order to identify the file categories in the Department of State’s central files likely to contain documentation of interest or locate other series with pertinent records. Doing that work takes time, however. It cannot be done effectively while you are waiting in the Research Room.

Reference staff is available in the Archives II Research Room from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. For those wanting a more in-depth explanation of the records or with difficult or advanced research projects, a specialist in foreign affairs records is available for consultation. The specialist is in the Archives II Textual Research Room every Tuesday morning from 9AM to 10AM and can answer questions about the organization and content of the records and help you plan a research strategy.

How to Approach Doing Research in Foreign Affairs Records

Here are some very basic hints on how to approach undertaking research in the records of the foreign affairs agencies. This guidance should be most helpful to novice researchers but can help those with more experience undertaking new avenues of research or working with different records for the first time.

For most topics relating to U.S. foreign policy since 1861, research should begin with a review of the pertinent volumes of the publication Foreign Relations of the United States . In addition to providing the text of the most important documents on U.S. foreign policy, FRUS also includes source citations and in this way serves as a finding aid to the records on U.S. foreign policy.

Be sure to record the sources cited in FRUS, note them in your correspondence with the National Archives, and bring them with you when you visit the National Archives. Please remember that given the mandate of the series, it does not include documents on every topic in the records and thus it is likely that there are records on more topics than in the publication.

While the subject of your research will dictate the records of most use in your research, for most topics involving U.S. policies and actions, the most important files of the Department of State are those that constitute the central files . The central files are the most inclusive and authoritative repository of reporting by American diplomatic and consular posts overseas and include much additional documentation on policy-making and implementation. There is at least some documentation in the Department’s central files on almost all topics relating to U.S. foreign policy and relations with other countries. The arrangement of the central files has changed over time. It is important to understand those changes in order to use the records effectively.

The documents in the central files (and the markings on them) will indicate the bureaus and offices in the Department that dealt with the pertinent issues and which Foreign Service posts and other agencies in the Government were involved, thus suggesting other avenues of research. After exhausting the sources found in the central files, you can expand your research to decentralized files of the Department indicated by the central files documentation, the records of Foreign Service Posts involved with the issue, and to other specialized files from the Department.

For many topics, the records of the various specialized foreign affairs agencies established during World War I , World War II , and the Cold War will include more documentation and details about policymaking and activities at the operational level for the specialized programs those agencies handled. In some cases, those operational records will be the focus of in-depth research. Most of those agencies did not have centralized recordkeeping, so you will have to familiarize yourself with the organization of the agency in question and the functions and responsibilities of each office in order to determine where to focus your research.

Introduction to the Foreign Affairs Web Pages

To assist with preparing for a research visit, the National Archives has prepared this set of web pages. Here, you will find an explanation of the records of the Department of State and related foreign affairs agencies, including those of a temporary nature established during World War I and World War II and the more permanent agencies created during the Cold War. These pages include information on the following:

Department of State

• Central Files
• Decentralized Files
• Foreign Service Posts
• International Conferences, Commissions, and Expositions
• Boundary and Claims Commissions and Arbitrations
• Interdepartmental and Intradepartmental Committees

World War I Special Agencies

• Committee on Public Information
• War Trade Board
• American Commission to Negotiate Peace

World War II and Aftermath Records

• Foreign Economic Administration
• Office of War Information
• Office of Inter-American Affairs
• American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Historic Monuments in War Areas
• Philippine War Damage Commission
• Displaced Persons Commission

Cold War Agencies

• Agency for International Development
• U.S. Information Agency
• U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
• Overseas Private Investment Corporation
• U.S. High Commissioner for Germany
• U.S. Foreign Assistance Agencies, 1947-1961
• Trade and Development Agency
• Peace Corps

Genealogical Records

Department of state publications and websites, other agencies relating to foreign affairs.