Advertisement

Using role theory to analyse British military intervention in the Syrian civil war during David Cameron’s premiership

  • James Strong
Original Article

Abstract

This article uses role theory to study British military intervention in the Syrian Civil War during David Cameron’s premiership. It attempts to understand the Cameron government’s limited willingness to use force (or willingness to use limited force) in the conflict as a product of role contestation in parliament. By analysing three debates preceding votes on military action in August 2013, September 2014 and December 2015, it shows how MPs debated whether Britain should play three distinct roles—of ‘faithful ally’, ‘responsible great power’ and ‘rule of law state’—and discussed how far fulfilling each role meant being willing to intervene militarily. Their disagreements, the article argues, undermined the coherence of the government’s preferred strategy, but did so without fundamentally delegitimising the idea of using force—hence its constrained commitment to intervention. The article concludes that involving parliament in decisions about military action makes it an important site for domestic role contestation of this sort.

Keywords

UK foreign policy Syrian civil war Role theory Foreign policy analysis Parliament Military intervention 

References

  1. Bevir, M., O. Daddow, and I. Hall. 2013. Introduction: Interpreting British foreign policy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15 (2): 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breuning, M. 1995. Words and deeds: Foreign assistance rhetoric and policy behavior in the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom. International Studies Quarterly 39 (2): 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broad, M., and O. Daddow. 2010. Half-remembered quotations from mostly forgotten speeches: The limits of Labour’s European policy discourse. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 12 (2): 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brummer, K., and C. Thies. 2015. The contested selection of national role conceptions. Foreign Policy Analysis 11 (2): 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantir, C., and J. Kaarbo. 2012. Contested roles and domestic politics: Reflections on role theory in Foreign Policy Analysis and IR theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantir, C., and J. Kaarbo. 2016. Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cornish, P., and A. Dorman. 2015. Complex security and strategic latency: The UK Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015. International Affairs 91 (2): 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daddow, O., and P. Schnapper. 2013. Liberal intervention in the foreign policy thinking of Tony Blair and David Cameron. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26 (2): 330–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Defence Committee. 2014. Intervention: Why, when and how?. London: TSOL.Google Scholar
  10. Defence Committee. 2015. The situation in Iraq and Syria and the response to DAESH. London: TSOL.Google Scholar
  11. Edmunds, T. 2010. The defence dilemma in Britain. International Affairs 86 (2): 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmunds, T., J. Gaskarth, and R. Porter. 2014. Introduction: British foreign policy and the national interest. International Affairs 90 (3): 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foreign Affairs Committee. 2012. British foreign policy and the ‘Arab Spring’. London: TSOL.Google Scholar
  14. Gaskarth, J. 2006. Discourses and ethics: The social construction of British foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 2 (4): 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaskarth, J. 2014. Strategizing Britain’s role in the world. International Affairs 90 (3): 559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaskarth, J. 2016. Intervention, domestic contestation, and Britain’s national role conceptions. In Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations, ed. C. Cantir and J. Kaarbo, 105–121. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hadfield-Amkhan, A. 2010. British foreign policy, national identity and neoclassical realism. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Hague, W. 2013a. Hansard house of commons debates, vol. 556. 10 January.Google Scholar
  19. Hague, W. 2013b. Hansard house of commons debates, vol. 566. 10 July.Google Scholar
  20. Hague, W. 2013c. Hansard house of commons debates, vol. 570. 11 November.Google Scholar
  21. Hansard. 2013. House of commons debates, vol. 566. 29 August.Google Scholar
  22. Hansard. 2014. House of commons debates, vol. 585. 26 September.Google Scholar
  23. Hansard. 2015. House of commons debates, vol. 603. 2 December.Google Scholar
  24. Harnisch, S. 2012. Conceptualizing in the minefield: Role theory and foreign policy learning. Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (1): 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holsti, K. 1970. National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 14 (3): 233–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Honeyman, V. 2012. Foreign policy. In Cameron and the conservatives: The transition to coalition government, ed. T. Heppell, 121–135. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson, V. 2005. Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis 1 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaarbo, J. 2015. A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in IR theory. International Studies Review 17 (2): 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kesgin, B., and J. Kaarbo. 2010. When and how parliaments influence foreign policy: The case of Turkey’s Iraq decision. International Studies Perspectives 11 (1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCourt, D. 2011a. Rethinking Britain’s role in the world for a new decade: The limits of discursive therapy and the promise of field theory. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13 (2): 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCourt, D. 2011b. Role-playing and identity affirmation in international politics: Britain’s reinvasion of the Falklands, 1982. Review of International Studies 37 (4): 1599–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCourt, D. 2014. Britain and world power since 1945: Constructing a nation’s role in international politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris, J. 2011. How great is Britain? Power, responsibility and Britain’s future global role. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 13 (3): 326–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliver, T. 2015. Interventionism by design or failure: The coalition and humanitarian intervention. The Political Quarterly 86 (1): 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strong, J. 2015a. Why parliament now decides on war: Tracing the growth of the parliamentary prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 17 (4): 604–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strong, J. 2015b. Interpreting the Syria vote: Parliament and British foreign policy. International Affairs 91 (5): 1123–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strong, J. 2017. Public opinion, legitimacy and Tony Blair’s war in Iraq. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Strong, J. 2018. The war powers of the British parliament: What has been established, and what remains unclear? British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20 (1): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thies, C. 2010. Role theory and foreign policy. In The international studies encyclopedia. West Sussex: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  40. Thies, C. 2012. International socialization processes vs. Israeli national role conceptions: Can role theory integrate IR theory and Foreign Policy Analysis? Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (1): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thies, C., and M. Breuning. 2012. Integrating foreign policy analysis and international relations through role theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker, S. 1981. The correspondence between foreign policy rhetoric and behavior: Insights from role theory and exchange theory. Behavioral Science 26 (3): 272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Politics and International RelationsQueen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations