«М’ЯКА СИЛА» ЯК ХАРАКТЕРНА ОЗНАКА ПОЛІТИЧНОГО ВПЛИВУ ВЕЛИКОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ ЗАУМОВ БАГАТОПОЛЯРНОГО СВІТУ В ЛАТИНОАМЕРИКАНСЬКОМУ РЕГІОНІ

Using Samuels’ [(2007). Securing Japan: The current discourse. The Journal of Japanese Studies, 33(1), 125–152] political categories of Japanese perspectives on strategic policy, this article argues that the nation’s foreign and security policy under the leadership of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has undergone three distinct phases: a first phase of neoconservatism during his first tenure as Prime Minister from 2006 to 2007; a second period when he returned to the office of Prime Minister five years later in 2012 that can be described as neoautonomous; and a third phase of pragmatic realism from 2015 to 2016. In addition, this article analyses the factors driving change from one phase to another. By adopting an eclectic approach to theory, it claims that each traditional theory in the field of International Relations (IR) offers different but complementary causal effects to shifts in security and foreign policies. Each IR theory emphasizes or downplays these four factors: actors, structures, material forces and ideas. This article will employ all three IR traditional theories as they relate to these factors to discern the change factors of Abe’s foreign policy. Finally, it concludes by siding with those scholars who assert that Japan’s foreign policy has made a consequential break from its past and has embarked on a new path towards a remilitarization of its foreign and security policy.

This research seeks to explore how the vast GCC sovereign wealth funds (SWF) can provide a vehicle for the development of the foreign security policy of these countries using constructivist paradigm. Although mostly small in sizes except for Saudi Arabia, the GCC countries with their extensive energy wealth are gradually becoming major players on the world stage. This was especially highlighted during the 2007-08 international financial crisis when GCC countries were visited by Western politicians requesting their assistance in bailing out failing financial institutions especially American banks. Gulf Cooperation Council sovereign wealth funds took the initiatives to invest in these failing Western financial institutions without much guarantee about returns on their investments which can be interpreted in different ways. Firstly, it could be interpreted as an effort to support the United States for example for its security guarantee or secondly as a means for these countries to gain influence (Behrendt, 2008). The increasing level of GCC sovereign wealth funds constituting at least 40% of global SWF and their reach in investments globally signal increased geopolitical meaning. However, the fund managers and the countries they originate have indicated that their investments are business transactions intended for purposes such as future generation and pension funds. Bahgat (2011) however indicates that GCC's SWF could have some foreign and security policy undertone. Over the years GCC countries have developed their security and foreign policies based on ‘bandwagoning’ realist paradigm in which the United States or the United Kingdom serve as proxy protector from challenges within and without. With some of the highest spending on their military and the changes in the political dynamics with globalisation and their own development, GCC countries while maintaining their ‘bandwagoning’ policies, have been emboldened by their wealth and military capability in term of military hardware. Ehteshami and Hinnebusch (2013) in seeking to clarify the GCC foreign and security policies in this new era indicates that it is complex realism because it provides a means for the countries of the GCC to continue to seek the protection of their Western allies, especially the United States and the United Kingdom while also flexing their own muscle. It is for this reason that Young (2015:15) asserts that the current foreign policy direction of the GCC is punctuated by the ‘balancing of realist concerns for state power and survival with domestic environments accommodating diverse constituents and structural considerations of the international systems’. Young (2013) also indicates that the GCC has change direction in its foreign and security policies to become interventionist. Intervention in Bahrain during the Arab Spring of 2011 as well as recent intervention in Yemen shows the changes that have come to mark the GCC. The deduction from the above discourse on GCC's foreign and security policy is that it has always been assessed using positivist approaches which fail to reconcile agency and structure issues in the foreign and security policy making. The use of constructivist methods in this work from the point of view of sovereign wealth funds provides means of exploring various themes both from agency and structure. In other words, how does the institutions and the policy makers affect GCC foreign and security policy making? Key Words: Development, GCC, SWF, Security, Foreign Policy.

This chapter takes stock of “the common” in the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Doing so, the chapter analyses the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) both in terms of institutions and substantive policies. Showing how European Union (EU) foreign policies after the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty have partially been crafted without the necessary institutional consolidation, it sheds light on the many policy challenges that EU diplomacy is confronted with. Cases that this chapter analyses by way of illustration are policies in reaction to the so-called “Arab Spring” and the transnational war in Syria, the EU’s foreign policy performance at the Iran nuclear talks, and the impact of the “Ukraine crisis” on both the EU’s foreign policy manoeuvrability and the perception thereof in other parts of the world. Likewise, the 2015 refugee crisis has become a stress test for common foreign policy responses, and will therefore be assessed in its impact on the perception of EU foreign policy. Finally, the chapter also touches upon the Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and its intricate interplay between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) structures and EU autonomous defence instruments. The European Union’s credibility as a foreign policy actor, it will be argued, hinges on its ability to both formulate common strategies and policies internally, and to hold such policies up in the face of third parties in order to see such European foreign policies implemented beyond declaratory rhetoric.

From today's viewpoint, 2016 may well represent the end of the post‐Cold War era and the general assumptions that are associated with it. These include the beliefs that the United States remains a European power, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of its European NATO allies, that liberal democracy represents the political system widely seen as the only legitimate normative reference point, and that the future of the European Union will be defined by continued integration into an ‘ever closer Union’. These assumptions have been shaken to the core.

During the last fifty years when the EC turned into the EU, the foreign policy aspect constantly gained importance; in changing its structures and functions the EU added foreign policy tools and developed a foreign policy which is different from the foreign policy of a nation state: The goals are strongly influenced by the historic experience of the Union, focussing on conflict prevention and conflict solution, reconciliation, fostering of human rights and rights of minorities, sustainability and protection of the environment while upholding a free market economy based on the European social model.Pursuing effective multilateralism, fostering interregionalism as a new diplomatic tool, inventing the European Neighbourhood Policy as an alternative to accession are some key instruments. Thus, a European diplomacy should translate the goals of the Common Foreign and Security and European Security and Defence Policies into action.The Lisbon Treaty of 2007, if ratified, will streamline the foreign policy process in creating the new function of the double hated High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, supported by European Diplomatic Service, called European Action Service. Since the adoption of the European Security Strategy in 2003, the military component in the EU's foreign policy has become more important, as the artificial distinction between economics and politics was abandoned. Although the European Union acts as civilian or soft power e. g. it is able to influence many but not all actors by offering the huge advantage of membership in the Union, the need for a certain military capability in order to be able to pursue its goals, is gradually recognised. Although foreign policy will remain the prerogative of the nation state, which remains the constituent element of the EU, the Europeanisation of foreign policy goals and the need to pool sovereignty in order to contribute to solving problems or to overcome crisis gains slowly momentum. The EU perceived by many as a role model is also responding to the perceptions of the international community which expects a substantial contribution of the EU to the governance of the international system commensurate with its economic might.

This chapter reviews the main characteristics of—and milestones for—the Czech foreign, security and defence policy since 1993. The Czech foreign and security policy is a relatively stable and Europeanised endeavour. It is firmly embedded in the European institutions, but is dependent on a very immature political debate. While foreign and security policy considerations guided Czech politics in the beginning, they have moved from the foreground as of late and have given way to domestic issues. The foreign policy ended with the accession to NATO and the EU for the Czech public debate, and there is insufficient understanding of external relations among the politicians. Czech political parties, as a result, lack expertise on foreign policy. Domestic considerations trump foreign policy thinking and Czech behaviour on the international scene is often trapped by domestic politicking. The resulting incoherent policy does not provide Czechs with much leverage in European negotiations, which in turn feeds the populist and isolationist voices at home.

The text reviews the main characteristics of and milestones for the Czech foreign, security and defence policy since 1993. The Czech foreign and security policy is a relatively stable and Europeanised endeavour. It is firmly embedded in the European institutions, but is dependent on a very immature political debate. While foreign and security policy considerations guided Czech politics in the beginning, they have moved from the foreground lately and have given way to domestic issues. The foreign policy ended with the accession to NATO and the EU for the Czech public debate, and there is insufficient understanding of external relations among the politicians. Czech political parties, as a result, lack expertise on foreign policy. Domestic considerations trump foreign policy thinking and Czech behaviour on the international scene is often trapped by domestic politicking. The resulting incoherent policy does not provide Czechs with much leverage in European negotiations, which in turn feeds the populist and isolationist voices at home.

This paper explores the pressures operating on European Union Foreign and Security Policy in the ‘triangle of forces’ created by the European integration process, developments in the Islamic world and the responses of the United States. In the first section, the paper explores ideas about foreign policy and power in the European Union (EU), as exemplified in debates about the Lisbon Treaty and the future role of the Union. The second part of the paper sets out three logics inherent in the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, distinguishing between the ‘internal’ logic of the European integration process, the ‘external’ logic reflecting the opportunity structure in the world arena, which creates challenges and opportunities for the EU and its Member States, and the ‘identity’ logic, which creates a move towards self-realisation and ‘self-recognition’ on the part of the EU in international politics, and relates this to recent developments in European foreign and security policy. The paper then argues that the multi-dimensional ‘triangle of forces’ between European integration, the Islamic world and the United States has played a key role in focusing these developments, by posing challenges to the three logics and creating complex linkages between them. The Conclusion asks whether as a result EU foreign policy has been ‘catalysed’ (given new impetus and direction) or ‘constrained’ (subject to a process of external or self-limitation), and points to some early indications of the impact of the Obama Administration in the United States.

In its aim to become a global security actor, the EU is increasingly undertaking civilian and military crisis missions all over the world. These missions are based on the European security and defence policy (ESDP) which forms an integral part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP). The Treaty of Lisbon seems to mirror the Union’s global security ambitions as it addresses the European security and defence policy in a whole new treaty section. However, European missions still depend on willing Member States to make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of its security and defence policy. The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between the European Union and the Member States in the fi eld of the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy and whether the Treaty of Lisbon manages to clarify the situation. What constraints, if any, do the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy impose on the Member States regarding the conduct of their national foreign policy? The article argues that the relationship between the EU and the Member States can only be determined after an examination of the binding nature of primary and secondary CFSP law as well as of international agreements concluded by the Union.

The article focuses on power and its ramifications which has always been the central point in all security studies in international relations. Power is a crucial element of international relations that influences world affairs. As a result, power plays a significant role in foreign policy formulation. Realism is the dominant theory of international relations, and it revolves around the concept of power. Power can come in a variety of forms and implies the capacity to influence others to do what one wants. There are two types of power: hard power and soft power. These two types of power influence international politics, security, economy, and foreign policy. Whereas hard power derives from a country’s military or economic might, soft power derives from the attractiveness of its culture, political ideals, and policies. In international relations, soft power is just as important as hard power. This paper argues that soft power is one dimension of power that refers to one’s ability to persuade others to do something. Different countries place a high value on soft power in today’s international politics. In international relations, the concept of soft power discourse emerged in the early 1990s. This article also argues that foreign policy of a country consists of self-interest strategies. It contains a general objective that guides the activities and relationship of one state in its interaction with other states. This paper intends to explain and analyze India’s foreign policy on the ideas of friendly relations, international cooperation, and peaceful coexistence among all nations, regardless of their political systems. Maintaining national security, advancing democracy, fostering world peace, providing aid, and establishing open trade are the main objectives of India’s foreign policy. The purpose of this paper is to theorize the dynamics of soft power in international relations and to analyze India’s soft power potential. In recent years soft power has become an important tool for governments to achieve their foreign policy goals. India, a country with rich sources of soft power, has made great efforts to use this capacity to achieve its foreign policy goals. Among Indian leaders Narendra Modi has paid considerable attention to the capacity of soft power in India’s foreign policy.

This study aims to comprehensively address the foreign policy cooperation processes shaped at the European Union (EU) level, especially in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), through the concept of Europeanization. In-depth analysis of the effects of the EU's integration and cooperation processes in the field of foreign policy on the national foreign policies of the member states is of great importance in understanding how this interaction is shaped both at the European and national levels. In this framework, it will be analyzed in detail how the EU's common foreign policy practices, which have been developed to increase its global influence, have harmonized with national interests and how they have sometimes come into conflict with these interests. Thus, it will be revealed how the EU's foreign policy strategies and national foreign policy dynamics interact. In this context, this study aims to examine the challenges faced by the EU in the foreign policy-making process and the historical, theoretical and practical obstacles in solving these challenges within the framework of the concept of Europeanization. It aims to analyze the development of foreign policy cooperation within the EU, especially in the period starting with the Maastricht Treaty, and the balance between the member states' desire to protect their national sovereignty and their efforts to establish a common foreign policy. In doing so, the scope and dimensions of the Europeanization process of national foreign policies in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy will be discussed and the formation process of the EU foreign policy and the important turning points in this process will be analyzed.

The member states of the European Union (EU) coordinate, define, and implement foreign policy in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This policy area, often referred to as EU foreign policy, has a broad scope covering all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to security and defense. The CFSP is supported by a unique institutional framework, in which member states diplomats and officials from the EU institutions jointly make policy. It is led by the High Representative, who is the “face and voice” of EU foreign policy, and supported by the substantial European External Action Service and 140 EU delegations in other countries and international organizations. Because foreign policy is normally the business of sovereign states, the exceptional nature of the CFSP has long been a subject of inquiry. The CFSP has particularly puzzled advocates of the traditional theories of European integration and international relations, who have failed to appreciate what the EU does in the field of high politics. Given the absence of formal diplomatic recognition and a strong reliance on the resources of the member states, the EU is still not a full-fledged actor, yet it has a strong international presence nonetheless. Its presence and the gradual increase in “actorness” have also raised questions about whether the EU presents a different type of actor, a civilian or normative power, which derives its influence from nontraditional sources of power. Under the assumption that the EU has some actorness, the Europeanization of foreign policy has become an area of interest. Member states can act through the EU structure to achieve more impact internationally, can adjust national foreign policy on the basis of EU positions, and are socialized into greater European coordination. The relationship between national and EU foreign policy is thus a significant topic of debate. Finally, governance perspectives increasingly provide insight into the organization of the CFSP. How the member states and the EU institutions collectively coordinate, define, and implement EU foreign policy is not only an important question in itself but also matters for policy outcomes.

International Relations of the European Union

International Relations of the European Union

The EU’s ambitions to be a global power are a surprising by-product of European integration. Students of European foreign policy mostly focus on EU trade, aid, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). But the national foreign policy activities of its member states cannot be neglected. On most economic issues, the EU is able to speak with a single voice. It has more difficulty showing solidarity on aid policy but is powerful when it does. The Union’s external policy aspirations now extend to traditional foreign and security policy. But distinct national policies persist, and the EU suffers from fragmented leadership. The chapter begins by considering the development of EU foreign policy and then considers how a national system of foreign policies exists alongside EU policies in the area of trade and international development. It then examines the EU’s CFSP and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).