A Methodological Introduction

  • Adeed I. Dawisha

Abstract

The study of international relations generally and foreign policy in particular has suffered, until recently, from an excessive concentration on the external activities of the great and medium powers, neglecting in the process the foreign policy behaviour of the countries of the third world.1 Not only does this undue emphasis on the large, industrialised and organisationally complex states reveal an obvious parochialism on the part of Western scholars, but it also carries an implicit assumption that states with different attributes (e.g. size, population, level of development, etc.) exhibit similar traits in their foreign policy behaviour—that for example an understanding of British foreign policy should by definition, lead to an appreciation of, say, Burmese or Jordanian external relations.

Keywords

Syria Turkey Posit Stein Egypt 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    One very recent study which deals with the foreign policies of the third world is Christopher Clapham (ed.), Foreign Policy-Making in Developing States: A Comparative Approach (London: Saxon House, 1977).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaborations: Essays on International Politics (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962), particularly chs 1, 6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahjat Korany, ‘Foreign Policy Models and Their Empirical Relevance to Third World Actors: a Critique and an Alternative’, International Social Science Journal, vol. 26, no. 1 (1974) p. 70.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Such as, Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography (London: Allen Lane, 1971);Google Scholar
  5. Majid Khadduri, Arab Contemporaries: The Role of Personalities in Politics (London: Johns Hopkins Press, 1973);Google Scholar
  6. Malcolm Kerr, The Arab Cold War: Gamal Abd al-Nasser and his Rivals, 1958–1970, 3rd edn (London: Oxford University Press, 1971);Google Scholar
  7. Noah Lucas, The Modern History of Israel (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974);Google Scholar
  8. Peter Mansfield (ed.), The Middle East: A Political and Economic Survey, 4th ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1973);Google Scholar
  9. Tareq Y. Ismael, Governments and Politics of the Contemporary Middle East (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    Michael Brecher, The Foreign Policy System of Israel (London: Oxford University Press, 1972);Google Scholar
  11. Michael Brecher, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy (London: Oxford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  12. 6.
    For example, A. I. Dawisha, Egypt in the Arab World: The Elements of Foreign Policy (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1976);Google Scholar
  13. Tareq Y. Ismael, The UAR in Africa: Egypt’s Policy under Nasser (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971);Google Scholar
  14. Shahram Chubin and Sepehr Zabih, The Foreign Relations of Iran: A Developing State in a Zone of Great Power Conflict (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1975);Google Scholar
  15. Kemal Karpat and contributors, Turkey’s Foreign Policy in Transition, 1950–1974 (Leiden: Brill, 1975);Google Scholar
  16. R. D. McLaurin, Mohammed Mughisuddin and Abraham R. Wagner, Foreign Policy-Making in the Middle East: Domestic Influences on Policy in Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria (London: Praeger Publishers, 1977).Google Scholar
  17. 7.
    Some of these pioneering works are: Richard Snyder, W. H. Bruck and Burton Sapin, Foreign Policy Decision-Making (New York: The Free Press, 1962);Google Scholar
  18. Glenn Paige, The Korean Decision: June 24–30, 1950 (New York: The Free Press, 1968);Google Scholar
  19. Fred. A. Sondermann, ‘The Linkage between Foreign Policy and International Relations’, in James N. Rosenau, (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press, 1961);Google Scholar
  20. Joseph Frankel, ‘Towards a Decision-Making Model in Foreign Policy’, Political Studies, vol. 7 (1959);Google Scholar
  21. James N. Rosenau, ‘Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy’, in R. Barry Farrell (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1966);Google Scholar
  22. K. J. Holsti, International Politics: A Framework for Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967);Google Scholar
  23. David O. Wilkinson, Comparative Foreign Relations: Framework and Methods (Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., 1969);Google Scholar
  24. Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971);Google Scholar
  25. Graham T. Allison and Morton H. Halperin, ‘Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications’, in Raymond Tanter and Richard H. Ullman (eds.), Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1972);Google Scholar
  26. Michael Brecher, Blema Steinberg and Janice Stein, ‘A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behaviour’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 13 (1969).Google Scholar
  27. Critical literature includes James N. Rosenau, ‘The Premises and Promises of Decision-Making Analysis’, in James C. Charlesworth (ed.), Contemporary Political Analysis (New York: The Free Press, 1967);Google Scholar
  28. Charles Reynolds, Theory and Explanation in International Relations (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1972);Google Scholar
  29. Michael P. Sullivan, International Relations: Theories and Evidence (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1976);Google Scholar
  30. R. Art, ‘Bureaucratic Politics and American Foreign Policy: A Critique’, Policy Sciences, vol. 4 (1973);Google Scholar
  31. S. D. Krasner, ‘Are Bureaucracies Important?’, Foreign Policy, Summer 1972;Google Scholar
  32. Lawrence Freedman, ‘Logic, Politics and Foreign Policy Processes’, International Affairs, vol. 52 (1976);Google Scholar
  33. A. I. Dawisha, ‘Foreign Policy Models and the Problem of Dynamism’, British Journal of International Studies, vol. 2 (1976);Google Scholar
  34. Stephen Andriole, Jonathan Wilkenfeld and Gerald Hopper, ‘A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Foreign Policy Behaviour’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 19 (1975);Google Scholar
  35. Hyam Gold, ‘Foreign Policy Decision-Making and the Environment: The Claims of Snyder, Brecher and The Sprouts’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 22 (1978).Google Scholar
  36. 11.
    These include Michael Brecher, Blema Steinberg and Janice Stein, ‘A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behaviour’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 13 (1969), pp. 75–101;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Brecher, op. cit. (1972); Brecher, op. cit. (1974); Michael Brecher, ‘Towards a Theory of International Crisis Behaviour: A Preliminary Report’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 21 (1977), pp. 39–74;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. and Michael Brecher, Decisions in Crisis: Israel 1967, 1973 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  39. 14.
    Oran R. Young, The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1967), p. 9,Google Scholar
  40. quoted in Phil Williams, Crisis Management: Confrontation and Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age (London: Martin Robertson, 1976), p. 20.Google Scholar
  41. 15.
    Charles McClelland, ‘Crisis and Threat in the International Setting: Some Relational Concepts’ (typescript), quoted in Brecher, op. cit. (1977) p. 40.Google Scholar
  42. 16.
    Oran R. Young, The Politics of Force: Bargaining during Super-power Crisis (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 15, quoted in Williams, op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar
  43. 17.
    The distinction is drawn by Williams, op. cit., pp. 21–7. This distinction corresponds to the analytical difference between the decision-making and systemic approaches, as elaborated in Charles F. Hermann (ed.), International Crises: Insights from Behavioural Research (London: CollierMacmillan, 1972), pp. 6–17.Google Scholar
  44. 18.
    Charles F. Hermann, ‘International Crisis as a Situational Variable’, in James N. Rosenau (ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1969), p. 414, quoted in Brecher, op. cit. (1977), p. 42.Google Scholar
  45. 21.
    See for example, Kamal S. Sahbi, Crossroads to Civil War: Lebanon, 1958— 1976 (London: Ithaca Press, 1976), pp. 97ff.;Google Scholar
  46. and John Bulloch, Death of a Country: The Civil War in Lebanon (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1977), pp. 37ff.Google Scholar
  47. 22.
    Munazzamat al-Kata’ib al-Lubnaniya (The Lebanese Phalange Organisation). A Maronite Christian organisation with a well-armed militia of some 40,000 members. Al-Kata’ib was the best organised and most effective of all the Christian forces during the civil war of 1975–6. For a succinct account of the organisation’s history, ideology and policies, see Michael W. Suleiman, Political Parties in Lebanon: The Challenge of a Fragmented Political Culture (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 232–60;Google Scholar
  48. see also Frank Stoakes, ‘The Supervigilantes: The Lebanese Kataeb Party as Builder, Surrogate and Defender of the State’, Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 11 (1975) pp. 215–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 25.
    President Hafiz al-Assad, Speech Delivered before a General Plenum of Local Government, 20 July 1976 (Damascus: The Baath Arab Socialist Party, 1976), pp. 24–6.Google Scholar

Source

  1. Enver M. Koury, The Crisis in the Lebanese System: Confessionalism and Chaos (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1976) pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adeed I. Dawisha 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adeed I. Dawisha
    • 1
  1. 1.The Royal Institute of International AffairsUK

Personalised recommendations