The Berlusconi Government’s Foreign Policy: The First 18 Months

Andreatta, Filippo; Brighi, Elisabetta

doi:10.3167/ip.2002.180114

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the context of Italy's three circles, this represented a significant break with the past, as coherence between the European, Atlantic and Mediterranean dimensions was no longer sought (Andreatta and Brighi 2003). 5 In particular, the strong ties to the Bush Administration led Italy to change alignments in the other circles and to distance itself from its established partners.…”

Section: A Break With the Past? The Berlusconi Government 2001-2006mentioning

confidence: 98%

Italian Foreign Policy: Domestic Politics, International Requirements and the European Dimension

Andreatta

2008

Journal of European Integration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: A Break With the Past? The Berlusconi Government 2001-2006mentioning

confidence: 98%

Italian Foreign Policy: Domestic Politics, International Requirements and the European Dimension

Andreatta

2008

Journal of European Integration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sometimes, these authors emphasise the decision-making power of political parties, particularly those forming the government majorities (Walston 2007b;Coticchia and Davidson 2018). In other cases, they weight the role of the prime ministers (Andreatta et al 2002;Alibonï 2003;Greco and Matarazzo 2003;Ignazi 2004;Croci 2005a, b) or consider the influence of foreign ministers and their bureaucratic apparatus (Serra 1991;Caggiula and Benedetti 1992;Zucconi 2002;Varsori 2015).…”

Section: Actorness Of Italian Foreign Policy and The Uncertain Role Of The President Of The Republicmentioning

confidence: 99%

The actorness of the President of the Republic in Italian foreign policy: a quantitative narrative analysis of two case studies (1999–2013)

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we address the topic of policy actorness in Italian foreign policy to characterize the understudied role of the President of the Italian Republic (PoR). We apply quantitative narrative analysis (QNA) as the methodological tool of our study, answering two research questions to which the academic literature has so far produced limited responses: (a) whether the PoR can be considered a relevant actor in Italian foreign policy and (b) which factors can affect the Italian PoR’s relevance in foreign policy. Considering the Italian PoR’s Diary as the unit of analysis and source of data, we study the two crucial cases of Ciampi’s presidency (1999–2006) and Napolitano’s first presidency (2006–2013). QNA allows us to quantify and compare, while maintaining an actor-centred approach, the relations of the two PoRs with the most relevant actors in foreign policy. The results of our analyses highlight the relevance of the Italian PoR figure, identifying the main areas of influence of the Italian head of state and their changes over time. We conclude providing a few hypotheses to interpret the outcomes of our analyses on the PoR’s role in Italian foreign policy.

show abstract

“…7 Others argued that the decision had already been made elsewhere (i.e., in Texas between Bush and Putin) and that holding the meeting in Italy was part of Berlusconi's "catering diplomacy." 8 Another important issue concerns the relationship between the EU and Russia, which Berlusconi made one of the main objectives of Italy's presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2002. Berlusconi and Romano Prodi, then president of the European Commission, did not share the same view: on various occasions, the former hinted at a possible accession of Russia in the EU, while the latter was against it, due to Russia's poor record on human rights and democratic practices.…”

Section: The Evolving Italy-russia Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Russia’s Trojan Horse in Europe? Italy and the War in Georgia

Carbone¹

2009

Italian Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Georgia launched a large-scale attack to retake control of South Ossetia, an enclave in the northern part of its territory that had been trying to break away formally since the late 1980s. In response, Russia bombed not only military but also civilian targets, claiming that its intervention was meant to protect Russian citizens. This quick escalation of events raised concerns about other unresolved conflicts in the South Caucasus. In fact, within a few days, Russian troops took control of South Ossetia and were ready to start a second front in Abkhazia, another separatist area within Georgia.Various world leaders and international organizations tried to find a solution to end the war. The UN Security Council met on a number of occasions, but failed to adopt a resolution. One of the most decisive actors was the European Union (EU), which, under the leadership of the French presidency, first managed to get a ceasefire and then applied soft sanctions on Russia that eventually led Russia to withdraw from the Georgian territory. As in other cases, the EU was divided. On one side, a group of member states in Central and Eastern Europe, together with the United Kingdom and Sweden, wanted the EU to take a tough stance against Russia. On the other side, a group of member states in Western Europe promoted a conciliatory approach with a view to avoid antagonizing Russia. Italy was in this group, but its position was seen as too close to Russia's claims. Nevertheless, in spite of the significant divergences among its member states, the Notes for this chapter begin on page 149.

show abstract

The Berlusconi Government’s Foreign Policy: The First 18 Months

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Italian Foreign Policy: Domestic Politics, International Requirements and the European Dimension

Italian Foreign Policy: Domestic Politics, International Requirements and the European Dimension

The actorness of the President of the Republic in Italian foreign policy: a quantitative narrative analysis of two case studies (1999–2013)

Russia’s Trojan Horse in Europe? Italy and the War in Georgia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About