Just defending national interests? Understanding French policy towards Iraq since the end of the Gulf War

Macleod, Alex

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800032

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…“Elites” are normally defined as a unit and are essentially black‐boxed. We often do not get to see the actual identity of the elite member who made a certain statement which was later used to code a particular national role conception (for example, Macleod 2004). As a result, the notion of national role conceptions suggests some degree of unity and agreement among elites in a country regarding NRCs when such agreement may not, in fact, exist 3 .…”

Section: Black‐boxing Elites Assuming Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This particular approach is not problematic insofar as it recognizes that even single leaders do not have one notion of their country's behavior abroad. 4 Macleod (2004) notes that ''I have decided to stick to them [to using speeches from national leaders] not just because official declarations are easily accessible but also because they are usually the outcome of a collective process, involving power struggles, policy disagreements and partisan infighting'' (Macleod 2004:364). Others, like Ingebritsen (2002), aggregate countries and refer to regions, Scandinavia in this case, as having similar roles in the world.…”

Section: Black-boxing Elites Assuming Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory1

Cantir¹,

Kaarbo²

2011

Foreign Policy Analysis

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cantir, Cristian and Juliet Kaarbo. (2011) Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1111/j.1743‐8594.2011.00156.x Many of the strengths of research in Foreign Policy Analysis have been overlooked by role theorists. Role theorists often assume that roles are shared across elites and masses, that elites can manipulate masses, or that public opinion on roles constrains elites. Role theorists also tend to assume that there is a consensus among elites over national roles. Research in Foreign Policy Analysis, on the other hand, demonstrates that foreign policy may be contested both vertically (between elites and masses) and horizontally (among elites) and that these conflicts affect foreign policy decision making and foreign policy behavior. We propose that (i) contested roles mean that roles and foreign policy are not as stable as is often implied; (ii) research on contested roles offers Foreign Policy Analysis a less preference‐oriented way of conceptualizing policy disagreements and decision making; and (iii) structures reveal themselves as important when agents use them in domestic discourse over contested roles, but the impact of international norm and role structures is not automatic, as it is shaped by the agents (and domestic structures) in the domestic political process. We suggest that research on the strategic use of roles could bring together these benefits of examining contested roles.

show abstract

Section: Black‐boxing Elites Assuming Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Black-boxing Elites Assuming Consensusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested Roles and Domestic Politics: Reflections on Role Theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR Theory1

Cantir¹,

Kaarbo²

2011

Foreign Policy Analysis

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The discourse is that of rational cooperation -and discourses are not mere fig-leaves -but some of the reality is that of rational instrumentalism. Furthermore identity politics are at stake, in the sense that on a vital issue like Iraq, France and Britain differed partly because of genuine contrast between their visions of themselves and of world politics (Macleod, 2004). Those who think that the French position in 2003 was mere opportunism should bear in mind that France and Britain had been differing since at least 1998 on the question of Iraqi sanctions and the 'no-fly zone', 'thereby treating the rest of the world to a permanent exhibition of European disunity' (Mortimer, 2000, p. 9).…”

Section: The Debate On National Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%