COURSE SYLLABUS. Foreign Policy Analysis

COURSE SYLLABUS Foreign Policy Analysis Instructor: Erin K. Jenne, PhD Professor, IR Dept. Central European University 4 Credits (8 ECTS Credits) Office hours: Weds. 11-3 (by appointment) This course aims to familiarize students with the process by which foreign policy is made. In exploring this question, the course takes students on a tour through the foreign policy analysis (FPA) scholarship, which utilizes a variety of theoretical frameworks and research strategies. Broadly speaking, the course follows a traditional "levels of analysis" structure, beginning with the systemic or structural level, where we examine constraints on foreign-policy making such as balance of power considerations and alliance structures. We also consider systemic sources of foreign policy, including transnational social networks, multi-national corporations, diasporas, epistemic communities, global norms, and the democratic peace. We then move to the state level to investigate the influence of domestic factors such as regime type, government veto players, bureaucratic and organizational politics, sub-state interest groups, public opinion and media, as well as cultural factors. Finally, we move to individuallevel factors that influence foreign policy decision-making, including cognitive maps, leadership traits, psychological factors, perceptions, and beliefs. Rather than offering a definitive answer to the question of how foreign policy is made, students will be encouraged to consider a number of possible sources and interactions among these sources. Students will also be asked to evaluate alternative accounts for a given foreign policy in order to construct the most plausible explanation for it. The course focuses largely on US foreign policy, as the FPA literature is largely U.S.-based. However, we will also examine foreign policy-making in the EU, China, Japan, Russia, as well as small or weak states. The goals of the course are threefold. First, it aims to familiarize students with the principal approaches to foreign policy as a field related to, but distinct from, international relations. Second, it enables students to participate in and contribute to contemporary debates on foreign policy-making using theoretically-informed empirical analysis. Finally, it teaches students how to research and write and deliver a foreign policy paper to assist their own government in diagnosing a problem and offering concrete policies to solve the problems. In doing so, students must give attention to both the costs and political viability of their proposal. Students are encouraged to read over the university guidelines on plagiarism with regard to any written work. 1

Course Aims The course s main aim is to provide students with a sound understanding of: 1) Competing theories of foreign policy 2) The principal differences between foreign policy and international politics 3) The trade-offs involved in using different levels of analysis 4) The uses and limits of comparative foreign policy analysis 5) How to ascertain the relative influence of psychological factors versus political institutions versus systematic constraints on foreign policy 6) How to identify analogies, national roles and norms in the production of foreign policy 7) How to write and deliver foreign policy papers. Learning Outcomes By the end of this course, students will be able to: Distinguish the causal logics of competing theories of foreign policy Explain foreign policy formation in concrete cases Test the relative explanatory value of competing theories using empirical analysis Undertake foreign policy analysis using process-tracing and other techniques Identify the policy implications of competing theories of foreign policy Develop, present and defend policy papers Course Requirements (1) Policy Paper (30%). Students are expected to write a policy paper addressing a foreign policy problem facing their own country. The paper should be 2,500 to 3,000 words in length (10-12 pages double-spaced). Students should consult with me in advance about their topics. Due 10 a.m. November 12. Details TBA. (2) Presentation (15%) Students will be expected to deliver a presentation in class based on their policy paper. They should be prepared to to argue for and defend their policy position in class (November 13, 15). Details TBA. (3) Final Exam (40%). Students will be given an in-class final exam on the final day of class, December 6. This will be comprehensive, covering all the material in the course. Students will be allowed to take a page of notes to the final with them and will be given additional time to complete the exam, if needed. (4) Class Participation (15%). Students are expected to attend all the seminars and participate in class discussions; since the course is highly interactive, it is essential that students attend the seminars having read the materials for that day s class. Additional short policy readings may also be assigned for selected seminars. 2

COURSE SCHEDULE Week 1. Course Introduction September 18: What is Foreign Policy and How Do We Analyze It? Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne. 2012. Introduction, in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford University Press), pp. 1-6. Valerie M. Hudson, Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations," Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2005), pp. 1-30. Further Reading Valerie M. Hudson. 2012. The History and Evolution of Foreign Policy Analysis, in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford University Press), pp. 13-34. Brian White. 1999. The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 5: 37-66. Walter Carlsnaes. 2002. Foreign Policy Analysis, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds.) Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage), pp. 331-49. Arnold Wolfers, The Goals of Foreign Policy, in Discord and Collaboration. Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 67-80. James N. Rosenau. 1971. Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press, chapter 6. Valerie M. Hudson and Christopher S. Vore. 1995. Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow, Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 209-238. Zeev Maoz. 1990. National Choices and International Processes. New York: Cambridge University Press, chapter 5. Ole R. Holsti. 1989. Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy, Diplomatic History, Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 15-43. David Patrick Houghton. 2007. Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy DecisionMaking: Toward a Constructivist Approach, Foreign Policy Analysis, 3, 1, pp. 24-45. September 20: Analytical Frameworks Walter Carlnaes. 2012. Actors, Structures, and Foreign Policy Analysis, in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford University Press), pp. 113-129. 3

J. David Singer. 1961. The Levels-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations, World Politics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 77-92. Further Reading Kenneth N. Waltz. 1959. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press, chap. 1. James N. Rosenau. 1968. Comparative Foreign Policy: Fad, Fantasy, or Field? International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 296-329. Robert Jervis. 1979. Perceptions and Misperceptions in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Barry Buzan. 1994. The Levels of Analysis Problem in IR Reconsidered, in Ken Booth and Steve Smith (ed.) International Relations Theory Today. London: Polity Press. Harvey Starr. 1988. Rosenau, Pre-theories, and the Evolution of the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy, International Interactions, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 3-15. Week 2. Systemic Theories of Foreign Policy September 25: Realist and Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell, and Norrin M. Ripsman. 2009. "Introduction: Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy." In Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro (eds.) Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-41. Randall L. Schweller and Xiaoyu Pu. 2011. After Unipolarity: China's Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline, International Security, Volume 36, Number 1, Summer 2011, pp. 41-72. Further Reading Kenneth N. Waltz. 2000. Structural Realism after the Cold War, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 5-41. Ali E. Hillal Dessouki and Baghat Korany. 2010. Globalization and Arab Foreign Policies: Constraints or Marginalization, in The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization, edited by B. Korany and A. Dessouki, American University in Cairo Press, chap 3 (pp. 45-65), http://books.geoogle.hu/books?id=64pwmy5qksmc&lpg=pa63&ots=rc03zeyelt& dq=the%20global%20system%20and%20arab%20foreign%20policies%20constraints &pg=pa61#v=onepage&q=the%20global%20system%20and%20arab%20foreign%2 0policies%20constraints&f=false. William Wohlforth. 2012. Realism and Foreign Policy, in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford University Press), pp. 35-53. 4

Gideon Rose. 1998. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy, World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144-72. Colin Elman. 1996. Cause, Effect and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz, Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 58-61. Mark R. Brawley, Neoclassical Realism and Strategic Calculations: Explaining Divergent British, French, and Soviet Strategies toward Germany between the World Wars (1919 1939), pp. 75-98. Colin Dueck, Neoclassical Realism and the National Interest: Presidents, Domestic Politics, and Major Military Interventions, pp. 139-69. Norrin M. Ripsman, Neoclassical Realism and Domestic Interest Groups, pp. 170-93. Colin Elman. 1996. Horses for Courses: Why not Neorealist Theories of Foreign Policy? Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 7-53. Kenneth N. Waltz. 1996. International Politics is Not Foreign Policy, Security Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 54-57. September 27: Liberal and Neo-Liberal Theories of Foreign Policy Andrew Moravcik. 2008. The New Liberalism, Oxford Handbook. G. John Ikenberry. 2018. The end of Liberal International Order? International Affairs, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp. 7-23. Michael W. Doyle. 2012. Liberalism and Foreign Policy. In Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield and Tim Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors and Cases, 54-77. John Duffield. 1992. International Regimes and Alliance Behavior: Explaining NATO Force Levels, International Organization, Vol. 46, pp. 819-855. Derick Becker. 2010. The New Legitimacy and International Legitimation: Civilization and South African Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy Analysis (April). Michael Doyle. 2012. Liberalism and Foreign Policy, Michael Doyle. 1983 Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 54-77. Michael Doyle. 1983 Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 205-235. James N. Rosenau. 1976. Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press. Wolfgang Wagner. 2003. Why the EU s Common Foreign and Security Policy will Remain Intergovernmental: A Rationalist Institutional Choice Analysis of European Crisis Management Policy, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 576-595. Andrew Moravcik. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics, International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 513-553. 5

Week 3. Other System-level Theories of Foreign Policy October 2: National and International Norms Nina Tannenwald. 1999. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use, International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 433-468. Alexander Cooley. 2015. Countering Democratic Norms, Journal of Democracy, pp. 49-63. Liat Radcliffe Ross. July 2013. Muslim Interest Groups and Foreign Policy in the United States, Great Britain and Canada: Identity, Interests, and Action, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 287-306. Ethan A. Nadelman. 1990. Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society, International Organization, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 479-526. Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, 2006. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, The London Review of Books, Middle East Policy, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 29-87. Allison Brysk. 2000. From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Richard Price. 1998. Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines, International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 613-644. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. 2001. Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics, Annual Review Political Science, Vol. 4, pp. 391-416. Tony Smith. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Yossi Shain. 1994-1995. Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 5, pp. 811-841. October 4: Neo-Gramscian and World Systems Theories William I. Robinson. 1996. Globalization, the World System, and Democracy Promotion in U. S. Foreign Policy, Theory and Society, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 615-665. Reading TBA : Sandra Halperin. 2011. The Political Economy of Anglo-American War: The Case of Iraq, International Politics 48(2/3): 207-228. Immanuel Wallerstein. 1974. The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System, Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, pp. 387-415. Claire Cutler. March 1999. Locating Authority in the Global Political Economy, International Studies Quarterly 43(1), pp. 59-81. 6

STATE LEVEL THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY Week 4. Government Institutions and Domestic Political Actors October 9: Organizational Culture and Bureaucratic Politics Patrick J. Haney. 2005. Foreign-Policy Advising: Models and Mysteries from the Bush Administration, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 289-302. Lai, Hongyi and Kang, Su-Jeong. 2014. Domestic Bureaucratic Politics and Chinese Foreign Policy. Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 23, No. 86, pp. 294-313. : Stuart Kaufman. 1994. Organizational Politics and Change in Soviet Military Policy, World Politics, Vol. 46, pp. 355-382. Abdulkader H. Sinno, Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008. Johan P. Olsen. 2001. "Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics." American Political Science Review, 95, 1, pp. 191-98. Graham Allison. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., chaps. 1, 5. John Steinbruner. 1976. The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Chap. 3. Morton H. Halperin, Priscilla Clapp, with Arnold Kanter. 2006. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, 2 nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Brookings. Paul A. Kowert. 2002. Groupthink or Deadlock? When do Presidents Learn from their Advisors? Albany: State University of New York Press. Irving Janis. "Introduction: Why So Many Miscalculations?" and "A Perfect Failure: The Bay of Pigs," Groupthink, Dallas: Houghton Mifflin, 1982, pp. 2-47. Zeev Maoz. 1990. Framing the National Interest: The Manipulation of Foreign Policy Decisions in Group Settings, World Politics, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 77-110. Alexander L. George. 1972. The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 751-785 October 11: Coalition Governance, Sectors, and Special Interests Joe D. Hagan, Philip P. Everts, Haruhiro Fukui, and John D. Stempel. 2003. Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy, International Studies Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 169-216. Lawrence R. Jacobs and Benjamin I. Page. 2005. Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy? American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 107-123. 7

Stephen M. Saideman and David P. Auerswald. 2012. Comparing Caveats: Understanding the Sources of National Restrictions upon NATO s Mission in Afghanistan, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp. 67-84. Jeffrey Frieden. 1988. Sectoral Conflict and Foreign Economic Policy, 1914-1940, International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 59-90. Judith Goldstein. 1988. The State and American Foreign Economic Policy, International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 179-217. Jack Snyder. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, chaps. 1,2,8. Jeffrey A. Frieden. 1991. Invested Interests, International Organization, Vol. 45, pp. 425-52. Week 5. Political Culture and Societal Actors October 16: Political Culture and Ideas Peter Hays Gries. 2014. The Politics of American Foreign Policy, Stanford University Press, Chapter 4. Akan Malici. 2006. Germans as Venutians: The Culture of German Foreign Policy Behavior, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 37-62. Further Reading John Duffield. 1999. Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism, International Organization, Vol. 53, pp. 765-803. Jeffrey Checkel. 1993. Ideas, Institutions, and the Gorbachev Foreign Policy Revolution, World Politics, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 271-300. Elizabeth Kier, Culture and Military Doctrine: France between the Wars, International Security, Vol. 19, pp. 65-93. Alastair Iain Johnston. 1995. Cultural Realism: Strategic culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. K. J. Holsti. 1970. National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 233-309. Lucian W. Pye. 1991. Political Culture Revisited, Political Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 487-508. Alastair Iain Johnston. 1995. Thinking about Strategic Culture, International Security, Vol. 19, pp.32-64. October 18: Media and Public Opinion Piers Robinson. 2012. The Role of Media and Public Opinion, in Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne (eds.) Oxford University Press, 168-187. 8

Benedetta Voltolini. 2015. Non-state Actors and Framing Processes in EU Foreign Policy: The Case of EU-Israel Relations, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 23, No. 10, pp. 1502-1519. Nathalie Frensley and Nelson Michaud. 2006. Public Diplomacy and Motivated Reasoning: Framing Effects on Canadian Media Coverage of U.S. Foreign Policy Statements, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 201-222. Steven Kull, Clay Ramsay and Evan Lewis. Winter 2003/2004. Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, No. 4, pp. 569-598. Benjamin E. Goldsmith and Yusaku Horiuchi. 2012. In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion about the U.S. Affect U.S. Foreign Policy? World Politics, 64, 3, pp. 555-585. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Neil J. Mitchell, and Kerry G. Herron. 2004. Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, pp. 287-309. Daniel W. Drezner and Henry Farrell. Nov./Dec. 2004. Web of Influence, Foreign Policy, No. 145, pp. 32-40 Chaim Kaufman. 2004. Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War, International Security, Vol. 29, No., pp. 5-48. Ole R. Holsti. 1992. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond- Lipmann Consensus, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 439-66. Matthew Baum. 2002. Sex, Lies and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public, American Political Science Review 96, pp. 91-109. John E. Mueller. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley. Douglas C. Foyle. 1997. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Elite Beliefs as a Mediating Variable, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 141-169. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY October 23: Personality, Leadership, and Psychoanalytic Approaches Daniel L. Byman and Kenneth M. Pollack. Spring 2001. Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 107-146 Stephen Benedict Dyson. 2007. Alliances, Domestic Politics, and Leader Psychology: Why Did Britain Stay Out of Vietnam and Go into Iraq? Political Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 647-666. Maryann E. Gallagher and Susan H. Allen, Presidential Personality: Not Just a Nuisance, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-21. Juliet Kaarbo. 1997. "Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision- 9

Making: A Framework for Research," Political Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 553-581. Robert E. Gilbert. 2008. Ronald Reagan's Presidency: The Impact of an Alcoholic Parent." Political Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 737-765. Juliet Kaarbo and Margaret G. Hermann. 1998. Leadership Styles of Prime Ministers: How Individual Differences Affect the Foreign Policymaking Process, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9, pp. 243-263. Stephen Dyson. 2006. Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair s Iraq Decision, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 289-306. Fred I. Greenstein. 2009. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama, 3 rd edition. Princeton University Press. James M. Goldgeier. 1994. Leadership Style and Soviet Foreign Policy: Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Margaret G. Hermann. 1980. Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 7-46. October 25: Cognition and Framing Keren Yarhi-Milo. 2013. In the Eye of the Beholder: How Leaders and Intelligence Communities Assess the Intentions of Adversaries, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 7 51 Ariel Levi and Philip E. Tetlock. 1980. A Cognitive Analysis of Japan s 1941 Decision for War, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 195-211. Kenneth Boulding, National Images and International Systems, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 3, pp. 120-31. Thomas S. Mowle. 2003. Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and External Conflict, Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 561-592. Alexander L. George. 1969. The Operational Code: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision Making, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 190-222. Yaacov Vertzberger. 1990. The World in their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition, and Perception. Stanford University Press. Michael J. Shapiro and G. Matthew Bonham. 1973. Cognitive Process and Foreign Policy Decision-making, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 147-174 Alexander George. 1980. Presidential Decisionmaking. Boulder: Westview Press, chap. 2-3. Rose McDermott. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. University of Michigan Press, chaps. 4-5. Jack S. Levy. 1994. Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield, International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 279-312. Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk (2008) Older but Wiser? Effects of Age on Political Cognition," The Journal of Politics, Vol. 70, pp. 168-185. 10

Week 7. Psychoanalytic Approaches (cont.) November 30: Emotions and Illness Rose McDermott. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, chap. 6. Deborah Welch Larson and Alexei Shevchenko. 2014. Russia Says No: Power, Status and Emotions in Foreign Policy, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3-4, pp. 269-279. Rose McDermott. 2007. Presidential Leadership, Illness and Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press, chap. 4. Ole R. Holsti and Alexander George. 1975. The Effects of Stress on the Performance of Foreign Policy-Makers, In C. P. Cotter, Political Science Annual. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, pp. 255-319. Neta C. Crawford. 2000. The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 116-56. November 1: Prospect Theory and Foreign Policy Kurt Weyland. 1996. Risk Taking in Latin American Economic Restructuring: Lessons from Prospect Theory, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 185-207. Yves-Heng Lin. 2017. The Future Instability of Cross-Strait Relations: Prospect Theory and Ma Ying-Jeou s Paradoxical Legacy, Asian Survey, pp. 1-21. Rose McDermott. 2001. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, chap. 2. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1986. Rational Choice and the Framing of Decision, Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4/2, pp. S251-78. Barbara Farnham. 1994. Avoiding Losses/Taking Risks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Jack S. Levy. 1997. Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 87-112. Jonathan Mercer. 2005. Prospect Theory and Political Science, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8, pp. 1-21. 11

Week 8. Constructivist Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis November 6: Historical Analogies and Metaphors in Foreign Policy Analysis Roland Paris. 2002. Kosovo and the Metaphor War, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117, No. 3, pp. 423-450. Jelena Subotić. 2016. Narrative, Ontological Security, and Foreign Policy Change, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 610-627. Ronald Krebs. 2015. Narrative and the Making of US National Security. Cambridge University Press. Jutta Weldes and Diane Saco, Making State Action Possible: The United States and the Discursive Construction of The Cuban Problem, Millennium, Vol. 25, No. 2 (1996), pp. 361-395. George Lakoff, Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf, Peace Research, Vol. 32, pp. 25-32. Yaacov Vertzberger. 1986. Foreign Policy Decision-Makers as Practical Intuitive Historians: Applied History and its Shortcomings, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 223-247. Yuen Foong Khong. 1992. Analogies at War. Princeton: Princeton University Press. David Campbell. 1998. Writing Security: The United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. University of Minnesota Press. Robert D. Dean. 2001. Imperial Brotherhood: Gender and the Making of Cold War Foreign Policy. University of Massachusetts Press. Carol Cohn. 1987. Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 687-718. November 8: Role Theory and Foreign Policy Mark Schafer and Stephen G. Walker. 2006. "Democratic Leaders and the Democratic Peace: The Operational Codes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 561-83. K. He and H. Feng. 2013. Xi Jinping s Operational Code Beliefs and China s Foreign Policy, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Stephen G. Walker. 1977. "The Interface Between Beliefs and Behavior: Henry Kissinger's Operational Code and the Vietnam War." Journal of Conflict Resolution 21: 129-68. Ole R. Holsti. 1970. "The `Operational Code' Approach to the Study of Political Leaders: John Foster Dulles' Philosophical and Instrumental Beliefs," Canadian Journal of Political Science 3:123-57. 12

Nathan Leites. 1953. A Study of Bolshevism. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Huiyun Feng. Summer 2005. "The Operational Code of Mao Zedong: Defensive or Offensive Realist?" Security Studies 14(4): 637-62. Week 9. Student Presentations November 12: Policy Papers Due November 13: Presentations November 15: Presentations (cont.) Week 10. Non-Traditional Foreign Policy Actors November 20: EU Foreign Policy L. Aggestam and M. Johansson. 2017. The Leadership Paradox in EU Foreign Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies. MA Orenstein and RD Kelemen. 2017. Trojan Horses in EU Foreign Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies. Björn Hettne and Fredrik Söderbaum. 2005. Civilian Power or Soft Imperialism? EU as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism, European Foreign Affairs Review, 10, 4, pp. 535-552. Spyros Economides and James Ker-Lindsay. 2010. Forging EU foreign policy unity from diversity: the unique case of the Kosovo Status Talks'. European Foreign Affairs Review, 15, 4, pp. 495-510. Ulrich Krotz and Richard Mayer. 2011. International Relations and The Rise of European Foreign and Security Policy, World Politics, 63, 3, pp. 548-579. Ian Manners and Richard Whitmann (eds) 2000. The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Per Stig Moller. 2003. European Foreign Policy in the Making, Brown Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 63-72. Michael E. Smith. 2004. Europe s Foreign and Security Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon J. Nuttal. 2000. European Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brian White. 1999. The European Challenge to Foreign Policy Analysis, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37-66. Henrik Larsen. 2009. A Distinct FPA for Europe? Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Analysing the Foreign Policy of EU Member States, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 537-66. Philip H. Gordon. 1997-1998. Europe's Uncommon Foreign Policy, International Security, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 74-100. 13

November 22: Diasporas and other Non-State Actors Amanda McFarlane. 2016. The Holy See s Diplomacy; An Analysis of Papal Mediation in the Middle East, 28 Florida Journal of International Law 167. Marlene Laruelle. 2015. Russia as a Divided Nation, from Compatriots to Crimea: A Contribution to the Discussion on Nationalism and Foreign Policy, Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 62, pp. 88-97. John Newhouse. 2009. Diplomacy, Inc.: The Influence of Lobbies on US Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs 88(3): 73-92. Jason A. Kirk. 2008. Indian-Americans and the US-India Nuclear Agreement: Consolidation of an Ethnic Lobby? Foreign Policy Analysis 4(3): 275-300. Henning Boekle, Volker Rittberger, and Wolfgang Wagner. 2001. Constructivist Foreign Policy Theory, in Rittberger, Volker (Ed) German Foreign Policy Since Unification: Theories and Case Studies. Manchester University Press, Chapter 5. Bryan J. Hehir. 1990. Papal Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, Vol. 78, pp. 26-48. Parag Khanna. 2004. The Metrosexual Superpower, Foreign Policy, Vol. 143, pp. 66-68. Raymond Cohen. 1991. Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 3-48; 153-161. Abigail E. Ruane. 2006. Real Men and Diplomats: Intercultural Diplomatic Negotiation and Masculinities in China and the United States, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 342-359. Edward Pentin. 2013. The Pope as Diplomat: How the Vatican Does Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, 27 th February 2013. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136240/edward-pentin/the-pope-as-diplomat Week 11. Foreign Policy of Weak States and Non-Democracies November 27: Weak and Developing States Kathleen J. Hancock. 2006. The Semi-Sovereign State: Belarus and the Russian Neo- Empire, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 117-136. Giacalon, Rita. 2012. Latin American Foreign Policy Analysis: External Influences and Internal Circumstances, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol.8, pp. 335-353. Diana Panke. 2012. Dwarfs in International Negotiations: How Small States Make Their Voices Heard, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 14

313-328. Mohammed Ayoob. 1991. The Security Problematic of the Third World, World Politics, Vol. 43, pp. 257-283. Peter Calvert. 1986. The Foreign Policy of New States. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books. Bahgat Korany. 1986. How Foreign Policy Decisions are made in the Third World. Boulder: Westview Press. Miriam Fendius Elman. 1995. The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging NeoRealism in its Own Backyard, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 171-217. November 29: Contemporary Russian and Chinese Foreign Policy Peter Ferdinand. 2017. Westward ho the China Dream and One Belt, one Road : Chinese Foreign Policy under Xi Jinping, International Affairs. Seva Gunitsky and Andrei P. Tsygankov. 2018. The Wilsonian Bias in the Study of Russian Foreign Policy, Problems of Post-Communism, pp. 1-9. Jessica Weeks. 2012. Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict, American Political Science Review. Jessica L. Weeks. 2010. Leaders, Accountability, and Foreign Policy in Non- Democracies, Dissertation, Stanford University. Brian Lai and Dan Slater. 2006. Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950-1992, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 113-126. Week 12. Wrap-up and Final Exam December 4: Foreign Policy in the Twenty-first Century Andrew Hurrell, Beyond the BRICS: Power, Pluralism, and the Future of Global Order, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 89-101. Short Reading, TBA. Georg Strüver. 2016. What Friends are Made of: Bilateral Linkages and Domestic Drivers of Foreign Policy Alignment with China, Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 170-191. Andrew Hurrell. 2006. Hegemony, Liberalism, and Global Order: What Space for Would-Be Global Powers? International Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 1-19. Juliet Kaarbo. 2003. Foreign Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century: Back to 15

Comparison, Forward to Identity and Ideas, in "Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20: A Symposium" edited by Jean A. Garrison, International Studies Review, Volume 5. Baohui Zhang. 2010. Chinese Foreign Policy in Transition: Trends and Implications, Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 39-68. Shiping Gouli Liou. 2003. Leadership Transition and Chinese Foreign Policy, Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 1-2, pp. 101-117. Evan S. Medeiros and M. Taylor Fravel. 2003. China's New Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 6, pp. 22-35. December 6: FINAL EXAM 16