Interpreting foreign policy: National, comparative and regional studies

Abstract

This Special Issue advances an interpretive research programme into Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations by showcasing new work on the study of foreign policy and regional cooperation. This introductory article explains the rationale and contents of the Special Issue in three parts. The opening part explains how the contributions complement the broader study of ideas in Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations through a critique of methodological positivism in the social sciences. The second part elaborates the theoretical framework used to cohere the collection, which centres on the study of 'situated agents' who, when confronted with policy dilemmas, draw on inherited traditions to inform their foreign policy practices. This is accompanied by a methods case study centring on David Cameron's European Union referendum strategy, which is used to illustrate the practical ways in which one can conduct interpretivist research into foreign policy. In conclusion, we spell out how the contributors conducted their work to advance the interpretivist research programme.

‘We don’t do that’: A constructivist perspective on the use and non-use of private military contractors by Denmark

“…It is here that I argue a sociological perspective on state sense- and decision-making is helpful. As has been argued elsewhere, a state’s foreign and defence policy, its perception of the appropriate composition and build-up of its forces and its involvement in international missions are not inevitable outcomes of global or functional changes but of processes of sense-making and political deliberation drawing on particular understandings of the self and the domestic and international histories and contexts (Berger, 1996; Bevir and Daddow, 2015; Finnemore, 1996; Guzzini, 2012; Katzenstein, 1996).…”

“…Constructivist IR scholars of all inclinations have long noted that new experiences and developments go through a deliberative sense-making process in which their meaning in relation to the ‘self’ is constructed (Ringmar, 1996; Risse, 2000; Wendt, 1992). From this literature we may learn that collective cultures and shared values and belief systems (Berger, 1996; Bevir and Daddow, 2015; Lund Petersen, 2012), as well as shared understandings of the self (national identities) (Browning, 2008; Bucher and Jasper, 2017; Guzzini, 2012; Ringmar, 1996), guide attention and perception and form an intricate part of our active and collective construction of reality: they shape ‘how our “national interests” are to be defined, or which foreign policy to pursue’ (Ringmar, 1996: 455). As Berger elaborated, state particular ‘historical experiences and the way in which those experiences were interpreted by domestic political actors’ bring forth particular belief systems and values that, in turn, provide the social structures and shared understandings that inform future interpretations and policy decisions (1996: 318–319).…”

Interpreting public policy dilemmas: discourse analytical insights

“…Drawing on this interpretive turn in policy analysis (Epstein, 2013;Bevir and Daddow, 2015), discourse analysis has been deployed effectively to investigate a range of public policy dilemmas. Environmental studies have utilised discourse approaches to explore a range of topics: changes in dominant discourses in the international whaling debate (Epstein, 2008), shifts in contested meaning of ecological terms over time (Dryzek, 2005).…”

Collective Memory and an Interpretative Approach

“…: 22-23). The interpretative approach to foreign policy, which lies in the nexus of Foreign Policy Analysis and International Relations, suggests that just like individual agents operating in domestic policies, state behaviour in the international sphere can be expounded as a form of social practice, unfolding in a world of cognition, perception, misperception, and intersubjective meanings about how the world functions (Bevir and Daddow, 2015;Taylor and Tverski, 1992;Wendt, 1992;Rosati, Hagan and Sampson III, 1994).…”

“…The latter emerges when narrative cannot be situated within the broader set 6 Examples of traditions are Wilsonianism in the U.S., Gaullism in France, Peronism in Argentina, and Christian conservatism in Germany (Hall, 2015;Croci, 2008;Dadow and Schnapper, 2013). 7 Traditions can be termed the political culture of foreign policy (Bevir and Daddow, 2015). 8 As Widmaier (2007: 782) and Subotić (2016: 617) argued, traumatic events are useful windows of opportunities for narrative activation as they provide intersubjective meaning to policy change (making it more acceptable).…”