Foreign Affairs Issues Research Articles

Implicancias de la salida unilateral de los Estados Unidos del Acuerdo Nuclear con Irán

El Acuerdo Nuclear firmado con Irán representó un gran hito de la administración Obama y garantizaba la no generación de armas nucleares en Irán durante 15 años, como comienzo. Sin embargo, en mayo del 2018 el presidente Donald Trump sorprendió a la comunidad internacional con la reimposición de sanciones a Irán y su salida unilateral del Acuerdo Nuclear. Esta decisión refleja su estilo de política exterior, pero también su alcance mundial, ambos temas serán analizados en el presente artículo.

Animus of the Underling: Theorizing City Diplomacy in a World Society

Summary This article explores the nature of city diplomacy using newly available archives chronicling the ‘municipal foreign policy movement’ of the 1980s, in which US city governments intervened directly in late Cold War foreign affairs issues. Cases covered include US city governments’ involvement in the nuclear free zone movement, the Central American crisis and the anti-Apartheid movement throughout the 1980s. A theoretical synthesis of literature in world society theory, diplomatic studies and social movement theory is used to explain the normative, macro-sociological, legal, democratic and sociopolitical dynamics of contentious city-government intervention in foreign affairs. Emphasizing the normative processes at play, this article argues through a world society theoretical interpretation that ‘municipal foreign policy’ efforts represent local-level codification of universal norms that the US federal government either neglected to enforce or directly violated.

International Law and Extraterritoriality: Brief of International and Extraterritorial Law Scholars as Amici Curiae (U.S. v. Microsoft)

Written by international and extraterritorial law scholars, the attached amicus brief was submitted in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. That case involves whether Congress, when it enacted the Stored Communications Act, intended to provide federal and local law enforcement authority to unilaterally seize the private email communications of foreign citizens stored abroad. The amicus brief explains how the Charming Betsy canon and the law of extraterritoriality are part of a well-defined body of law the U.S. Supreme Court has developed for determining how American law applies abroad. These doctrines exist independently: one aims to avoid unsanctioned violations of international law. The other prevents the improper projection of American legal power beyond our borders. But they share much in common. Both rest on a properly restrained understanding of the judiciary’s place in our constitutional order, under which the often-delicate issues of foreign affairs in lawmaking are properly reserved to Congress, not courts. And both are grounded on shared insights the Court has gained over time about Congress’s approach to lawmaking: Its preference for “domestic, not foreign matters;" its respect for other nations’ sovereignty; its regard for international law; its inclination toward international collaboration; and perhaps most importantly of all, its avoidance of international friction and strife — unless some overriding policy need compels congressional action despite the risk of such strife. The brief explains why the Court should preserve the assumptions about extraterritoriality that the legislative and judicial branches have shared since the Republic’s early days. These shared assumptions properly constrain law enforcement and other governmental actors. They also prevent the march of technological progress from introducing an extraterritorial creep into laws that Congress intended to remain domestically fixed. And they push the Executive to engage with Congress to address cross-border challenges, including transnational crime. It explains why the electronic seizure of electronic records physically located in another country is an exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction in violation of international law, and why the Court's extraterritoriality jurisprudence prohibits assuming, when no indication exists in the statute, that Congress authorized borderless law enforcement.

Women in the CSDP: strengthening the EU\u2019s effectiveness as an international player

Security and defence cooperation in the EU is being upgraded, and therefore the importance of the civilian missions and military operations launched in the framework of the Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is likely to increase. This article argues that much can be gained by improving the gender balance in CSDP missions and operations. The participation of female personnel in crisis management has a positive effect on operational effectiveness and contributes to the acceptance of the mission by the local population. Moreover, women deployed abroad play an important role in overcoming gender stereotypes and demonstrating the EU’s commitment to gender equality. This article explores the reasons for the low number of women in CSDP missions and operations. It suggests ways to improve the gender balance at the national and EU levels, which would increase the EU’s chances of resolving foreign affairs issues abroad.

How Zivotofksy II and the Conservative Divide Over the Foreign Affairs Power Could Impact the Trump Administration

In 2015, the United States Supreme Court held in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (Zivotofksy II) that the President of the United States possesses the exclusive power under the Constitution to recognize foreign sovereigns. The holding allegedly marked the first time in the nation’s history when the Supreme Court “accepted a President’s direct defiance of an Act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.” Although the case was (in theory) limited solely to the recognition power, Ziovtofsky II had (and still has) significant implications for the doctrine of separation of powers and executive power generally. For example, the case marked a rare instance where the Court upheld presidential action in a Justice Jackson tier three scenario. In that light, the case serves as an additional stamp of approval on an ever-increasing power grab by executives, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. Whether it be sending troops abroad (without a congressional declaration of war or authorization of the use of force), negotiating and concluding sole executive agreements (instead of treaties), or choosing to recognize a foreign sovereign (against the will of Congress), the scope of the foreign affairs power is incredibly significant to the United States and the international legal order. Two recent events warrant revisiting Zivotofsky II. First, in November 2016, the United States elected Donald J. Trump as president. Without commenting on the legitimacy of Trump’s policy stances on issues of foreign affairs, the reality is that many — on both the left and right — believe that one of the greatest dangers to the United States and the world as a whole is those positions. Thus, while the scope of the foreign affairs power is critical regardless of who is President, Zivotofksy II’s claim of an exclusive presidential power, and especially one in the field of foreign affairs, becomes even more critical in light of a Trump presidency. This Article discusses some of the direct impacts that Zivotofksy II could have for the Trump administration. Additionally, Justice Gorsuch has replaced Justice Scalia. What makes Justice Scalia’s death so critical for the foreign affairs power is that the position he took in his dissent in Zivotofksy II, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, may not be shared by Justice Gorsuch, and it is certainly not shared by Justice Thomas. Thus, conservatives could be divided over the scope of the foreign affairs power on some key issues, including immigration and terminating treaties, for the Trump administration.

Spinning War and Peace: Foreign Relations and Public Relations on the Eve of World War II

The eve of World War II saw the development of direct connections between public relations experts and issues of foreign affairs in the United States. Public relations professionals assisted both internationalists and noninterventionists to spread their arguments across the nation, helping them to hone their messages, to organize, and to raise money. All of the main citizens’ organizations created during this period sought public relations assistance in the face of growing popular awareness of global events, and with an awareness of the need for public relations counsel in the face of an increasingly measurable concept of public opinion.

Do we need more economics in Australian economic diplomacy?

ABSTRACTEconomic diplomacy—that is, informal and formal processes and links between states and non-state actors on international economic issues—is a current focus of Australian foreign policy. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s stated economy diplomacy aims are liberalising trade, boosting economic growth, encouraging investment and assisting business. If Australia is to embrace a genuine and effective notion of economic diplomacy there are two problems to be overcome. First, DFAT’s economic diplomacy framework is incomplete and misses the bigger economic picture, particularly the role of Australia’s key economic agencies, Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia. Second, DFAT does not consistently apply economic principles to foreign affairs issues including trade, foreign aid and the global investment agenda. Going forward, Australia should abandon the focus on the four narrow pillars and instead focus on developing a clear, coordinated international economic strategy that articulates Australia’s core international economic objectives and priorities.

Media and foreign policy: A comparative study of journalists’ perceptions of press—government relations during the six-party talks

This study examines journalists’ role conceptions in their coverage of diplomatic issues, based on a survey of South Korean, US, and European journalists who covered the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program. The author found differences between South Korean, US, and European journalists in their perceptions of the role of journalists in the multilateral nuclear talks. Compared with US and European journalists, South Korean journalists believed more strongly that journalists are participants in the negotiation process and that news sources have significant influence on their judgments of the newsworthiness of issues related to the talks. This comparative study offers important implications for the press—government relationships in foreign affairs issues.

Colonialism and the Campaign Trail: On Kennedy's Algerian Speech and his Bid for the 1960 Democratic Nomination

Colonialism and the Campaign Trail:On Kennedy's Algerian Speech and his Bid for the 1960 Democratic Nomination Theresa Romahn For a successful candidate, the road to the U.S. presidency is one that is not merely walked in the year before the election. Rather, it is something prepared for years prior to the attempt, for some their entire political career is aimed towards it, for others, their entire life. In recent memory, no one's career speaks more to this fact than America's youngest elected President, John F. Kennedy, whose political ambitions are well documented. What is not well integrated into this image, however, is how his 1957 Congressional Speech criticizing the Eisenhower administration's policy towards the aspirations of Algerian nationalists fits into his overall strategy to secure himself the Democratic nomination for the 1960 Presidential campaign. This paper analyzes the content and timing of Kennedy's Algerian speech, seeing it not only as a way to achieve recognition as someone versed in foreign affairs issues, but also as a method to overcome the criticisms that were made against his candidacy and attract the votes of various interest groups within his own party. While it was just one of many methods used to garner the nomination, it is important to understand the 1957 speech in this context in order to fully comprehend the way that Jack Kennedy ran for the Presidency and that, contrary to popular belief, he could not talk himself out of everything. John Kennedy came from a family immersed in politics, both his grandfathers holding office as Representatives of Massachusetts in Congress and the Senate, and his businessman father even held an ambassadorship in England from 1938-40. Jack's own career in politics began in 1946 when he ran for the position of Representative to the House for Massachusetts' Eleventh district. Although a decorated war hero, Kennedy still had to overcome the fact that he was only twenty-nine years of age and he had not held an occupation outside of his studies, military service and a short time writing for Hurst newspapers in 1945. Therefore, from the very beginning of his political career, he used every asset to achieve victory. The return to Boston was done to build on the popular Kennedy and Fitzgerald names established by his grandfathers. The specific choice of the Eleventh district, which contained both Cambridge and Boston's poor North and East ends, populated mainly by the poor Irish and Italians, allowed him to appeal to the Harvard intellectuals as well as use his Irish and Catholic background to gain votes in the North and East ends. His father also helped his first step into politics when he offered to pay off the mounting debts of James Curley, the Eleventh district's serving Congressman, and finance his campaign for mayor of Boston if he would vacate his seat.1 Kennedy stayed in the House of Representatives for three terms, from 1947-1953, where he held a fairly unremarkable record. While he neglected the needs of the people of his own district, he did use the opportunity to speak about foreign affairs, on occasion criticizing the Democratic administration for their failure to properly contend with Cold War threats.2 In 1952, he took his next step in his political career when he defeated Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. for his Massachusetts Senatorial seat. Biographer Robert Dallek notes that Kennedy's campaign for the Senate seat began as early as 1947, when he started taking both state-wide and nation-wide speaking engagements in which he portrayed himself as a Cold Warrior while discussing foreign affairs and points of national interest.3 He visited Indochina in 1951, using his report on that trip to criticize the government for failing to build a strong local government that could counter the onslaught of communism. This focus on creating a national profile continued once he became a Senator, taking his first controversial public stance on January 14, 1954 on the issue of foreign relations with Canada and the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway canals. Although these canals were seen as something that would harm Massachusetts's harbor cities, Kennedy argued that it...

The Salience of Foreign Affairs Issues in the German Bundestag

There is an institutional as well as a cognitive dimension to the Bundestag's ability to shape German foreign policy. Existing analyses, however, have disregarded the cognitive preconditions for the Bundestag members to make use of their institutionalised powers. We have operationalised the cognitive dimension of parliamentary influence through the concept of issue salience, which refers to the importance an actor ascribes to an issue on the political agenda. The article presents the results of two consecutive surveys among all Bundestag members in which we have measured the salience of foreign policy issues with respect to three points of reference: the salience of (1) substantive issue areas, (2) Germany's bilateral relationships and (3) Germany's relations to international organisations.

Editor's introduction: Thirty years of "Irish Studies in International Affairs"

Editor's introduction Thirtyyearsof IrishStudies inInternational Affairs John Doyle Centre for International Studies, School of Law and Government, Dublin CityUniversity In addition to having a strong focus this year on the concept of the 'responsibility to protect' (R2P), this issue of Irish Studies in International Affairs marks the thirtieth year of publication of the journal?something of a milestone and one that provides an opportunity to look back over the development of the journal itself and thewider study of international affairs in Ireland over that time period. A National Committee for the Study of International Affairs had been established by theRoyal IrishAcademy in 1977, and thefirst issue of this journal two years later published a series of papers from seminars and the committee's first annual conference. That issue, edited by Liam de Paor and Patrick Keatinge, had a focus that would not be out of place today?Ireland's relationship with theLeague of Nations and United Nations, Anglo-Irish relations, Ireland's development policy and the direction of Irish foreign policy. The committee thatoversaw the launch of the journal included, in addition to the editors, some people who have retained a connection with theAcademy's international affairs committee to the present day?Garret FitzGerald and Noel Dorr?and academics who went on to publish in the journal frequently in the following years. The demand to publish the journal reflected a wider sense that Ireland needed a greater level of academic reflection on foreign affairs. The low level of debate on foreign policy matters was also of concern tomembers of Dail Eireann at that time. In 1978, a future leader of theLabour party,Ruairi Quinn, speaking in thefirst debate on foreign affairs after Fianna Fail's overwhelming victory in the 1977 election, called for a public debate on the values that should inform foreign policy. In the course of his speech, Quinn said that 'there appears to be a lack of interest in foreign affairs' and that in the past, even during the period of external affairsminister Frank Aiken's high-profile activityin the UnitedNations inthelate 1950s, thedecisions made in relation to Ireland's foreign affairs activities were 'of concern perhaps more to the individuals [involved] and the parties rather than to thepublic'.1 He argued that thiswas set to change, by virtue of our entry into and membership of theEEC which includes the present situation where the nine member states are attempting tomove towards common lDdil Debates, vol. 306, cols 465-75,4 May 1978. Author's e-mail: john.doyle@dcu.ie IrishStudies inInternational Affairs, Vol. 20 (2009), 1-5. doi: 10.3318/ISIA.2009.20.1 2 Irish Studies inInternational Affairs policy positions on major issues of foreign affairs, we no longer have to depend purely on our powers of persuasion. We have in a vague and perhaps ill-defined form a power which we never previously had, albeit a negative one, and to that extent foreign affairs is no longer an irrelevant luxury that can be talked out on a Thursday afternoon by people who happen to have an interest in things beyond the seas. It affects us in a very real way...we have a responsibility by virtue of having a say and therefore some power.2 There was at that time no parliamentary forum for consistent discussion on foreign affairs. Academia had been equally slow to formalise the interests of individuals. While therewere individual academics with an interest in international affairs,many of them involved in the launch of the journal, no Irish university offered a specialised degree in international relations at either primary or postgraduate level. Those who gave impetus to the study of international affairs through the journal are due a debt of gratitude, as now, 30 years later, the formal university study of international relations is one of the fastest growing sub-disciplines in the broad social sciences/humanities area in Ireland. Students can now takemodules in international affairs at every Irish university and have the option in a number of colleges of taking a full degree in international relations/studies at BA, MA or PhD level, and in specialisms such as development, international security, peace and conflict studies or EU...

Positions and attitudes of Israeli Arabs regarding the Arab world, 1990–2001

Scholars have debated intensely whether Israel's Arab citizens are increasingly becoming hostile to the State, working within the system, or aspire to some form of cultural and political autonomy short of insurrection and potential secession-I Whatever position they take in the debate, most would agree that Israeli Arabs have become increasingly politically assertive over the past two decades in Israeli politics. The following article analyses whether this assertiveness characterizes Israeli Arab attitudes and behaviour towards the Arab world (rather than the Palestinians) since Iraq's occupation of Kuwait on 1 August 1990 up to 2001. It begins by exploring their attitudes and behaviour regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent war waged between the Allied coalition and Iraq and Israel's policies in Lebanon during the 1990s until the final withdrawal on 24 May 2000. Another milestone that elicited many reactions amongst the Israeli Arab public and elite was the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty signed in October 1994 in Wadi Araba near the Gulf of Akaba. It proceeds to investigate the positions Israeli Arabs adopted toward the intensive struggle waged mainly by professional unions in states such as Egypt and Jordan that signed formal peace treaties against the 'normalization7 of relations (muqawamat al-tatbi') between Israel and Arab states and their respective societies2 This was by far the most complex issue facing Israeli Arabs not only because it extended into the cultural realm but also because it raised the issue of their legitimacy in the Arab world. The article concludes by asking how these positions on foreign affairs issues help identify whether Israel's Arabs are embarking on a radical approach, taking the more moderate alternative of working within the system, or maintaining some position in between. The article is based on an analysis of the Israeli Arab press, the major Hebrew-language newspapers and the little secondary source material that exists on the subject.

The Impact of Attitudes toward Foreign Policy Goals on Public Preferences among Presidential Candidates: A Study of Issue Publics and the Attentive Public in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election

At each moment in history, every democratic government finds itself facing many national problems in need of solution, and as a result, a primary mission of government is formulating, proposing, evaluating, ratifying, and implementing policies to address numerous issues. Throughout the history of the United States, much of government's attention has been devoted to such domestic issues as unemployment, crime, education, social welfare, health care, environmental pollution, energy provision, and more. Such problems pose immediate and obvious threats to American citizens, apparent in many people's daily lives. At the same time, however, the U.S. government has always spent a great deal of effort dealing with issues of international relations: managing cooperation with allies; providing financial aid to countries in need; managing trade relations; building, equipping, and maintaining the U.S. military; combating terrorism, and at times, going to war. This process of formulating policies and implementing them is importantly shaped by a nation's populace, via many routes. Citizens can and do make their policy attitudes known to government officials via opinion polls, by giving money to lobbying organizations, and by attending rallies. Individuals can also communicate their views on policy issues directly to elected representatives by sending letters or making telephone calls. And citizens can use their policy attitudes when deciding which candidates for public office to support, thus enhancing the likelihood that the elected officials will share voters' own views. In order for the members of the general public to take any of these steps, they must have formed attitudes on policy issues. They must think about and understand an issue enough to decide which policy approaches they wish to support and which they wish to oppose. Therefore, understanding when citizens form and express opinions on policy issues and when they do not has been a topic of study for political scientists for decades. One particularly intriguing question in this arena has been the extent to which Americans form and express opinions on foreign policy issues. According to some scholars, most people are only engaged by policy matters that directly touch their own lives, such as taxes and health care (e.g., Almond 1950; Kagay and Caldeira 1980; Light and Lake 1985; Rosenau 1961). Foreign policy, by its very nature, involves matters that play out far away from most citizens. Certainly, the news media have brought vivid images of distant places into Americans' living rooms, and very recent history has made the everyday relevance of foreign peoples especially apparent to all Americans. But relations with African countries, economic aid to Mexico, and weapons agreements with Russia have implications for most people that are vague at best. Therefore, say some scholars, most issues of foreign affairs are unlikely to be of sufficient concern to most people most of the time for them to form opinions about desirable or undesirable courses of action (e.g., Almond 1950; Converse 1964; Hughes 1978; Rosenau 1961). As a result, vote choices and lobbying organization efforts will rarely reflect such opinions. But who composes the minority contradicting this general rule? Who does, in fact, use international relations matters to decide which candidates to support and to give money to lobbying organizations with purely international foci? Two different and competing scholarly answers to these questions are evident in the literature. According to Almond (1950), this subgroup is the public, an elite group of citizens who are especially attentive to and informed about a wide range of public affairs issues. People for whom CNN and The New York Times are central components of everyday life cannot help but learn and ruminate about a wide range of foreign affairs issues, so they form and use attitudes on all of them. To the extent that government's foreign policy actions are shaped by public opinion, it is these individuals' opinions that should be consequential because these are the people with such opinions (e. …

La doctrine Bush de l' "engagement collectif" ou la continuité de la politique étrangère américaine au Moyen Orient

The Bush Doctrine is Selective Engagement: Continuity in American Foreign Policy toward the Middle East, by Kenneth W. Stein What is the Bush doctrine and how does it fit in American foreign policy? The thesis of this article is that the Bush doctrine is part of a broader bipartisan American foreign policy that has emerged since the end of the Cold War. Defined as «sélective engagement», four criteria are offered for how the US has defined its willingness to be physically involved abroad: is it in the national interest? Can a coalition be formed to share burdens? What will it cost in terms of men and money? Will the region be better off after engagement? Five reasons are offered why the Bush administration had little if any interest in engaging in foreign affairs issues in general and the Middle East in particular. Despite all signs to the contrary, the new administration, while battling terrorism and witnessing an unprecedented but unsuccessful effort by the Clinton administration to weave together an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, publicly advocated a Palestinian State alongside Israel and put in place the Mitchell/Tenet/Zinni framework to rejuvenate Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”

While candidates regularly spend much time and effort campaigning on foreign and defense policies, the thrust of prevailing scholarly opinion is that voters possess little information and weak attitudes on these issues, which therefore have negligible impact on their voting behavior. We resolve this anomaly by arguing that public attitudes on foreign and defense policies are available and cognitively accessible, that the public has perceived clear differences between the candidates on these issues in recent elections, and that these issues have affected the public's vote choices. Data indicate that these conclusions are appropriate for foreign affairs issues and domestic issues.

Soviet Diplomacy and Negotiation Behavior: Emerging New Context For U.S. Diplomacy. By Joseph G. Wheian. Special Studies Series on Foreign Affairs Issues, vol. 1, 1979. lxvi, 573 pp. Paper. Distributed by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Soviet Diplomacy and Negotiation Behavior: Emerging New Context For U.S. Diplomacy. By Joseph G. Wheian. Special Studies Series on Foreign Affairs Issues, vol. 1, 1979. lxvi, 573 pp. Paper. Distributed by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. - Volume 40 Issue 4

Editorials and Foreign Affairs in the 1972 Presidential Campaign

Editorials on foreign affairs favored Nixon even in papers which endorsed McGovern. Results support notion that foreign affairs issues decided election.

Violent Conflicts and the New Mediatization: The Impact of Social Media on the European Parliamentary Agenda Regarding the Syrian War

As key institutions in Western democracies, parliaments have gained importance regarding foreign affairs issues in recent years. Their increasing role as moral tribunes and discussion forums on conflict prevention and resolution have led to the parliamentarization of international affairs. The examination of the parliamentary agenda and the actors who shape it constitutes a fundamental part of agenda-setting studies as applied to the media and political systems. Among these actors, mass media must be highlighted, taking into account the complex process of information gathering for members of Parliament, particularly in cases related to international violent conflicts. Moreover, in the specific situation of the Syrian Civil War, social media have become increasingly important due to the difficulties faced by traditional media in performing their job on the ground. In order to know the impact and roles played by social media in parliamentary debates, we applied a computer assisted quantitative content analysis to 3,249 minutes from the parliaments of United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and the EU, as well as a qualitative analysis. The results show that, during the first part of the conflict, social media were regarded by European parliaments as positive tools for the dissemination of information whereas, in the second phase, the diffusion of jihadist propaganda by such media completely altered the attitudes toward them.

Lenin and Mussolini

Excerpts from articles appearing in previous issues of Foreign Affairs on subjects of the development of contemporary international relations are presented which include a September 1923 article by Harold J. Laski about Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin and Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini, a July 1930 article by Paul Scheffer about Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, and an April 1932 article by Paul Scheffer about German leader Adolf Hitler.; (AN 69880004)The Rise of the Modern Order What follows are selections from our archives that tell the story of the ideological battles of the past century and the emergence of the modern order. To make the package as a whole coherent and accessible, we have included only the most relevant parts of articles directly related to this theme and presented the articles in substantive, rather than strictly chronological, order. The contents of each article have not been rearranged, however, and all elisions have been clearly marked. The full text of all the articles in the package, and more, can be found in the accompanying e-book, The Clash of Ideas, available at ForeignAffairs.com.