Foreign Policy Decision Making - Essay Example

Running Head: INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING International Politics and Foreign Policy Decision Making Name Institution Date Introduction Foreign policy decision-making is a foundational task of subfield of foreign policy analysis within the field of international relations. International relation is a study that concerns with associations among nations, incorporating the functions of states, international non-governmental organization, multinational corporations and non-governmental organization. It is a field of academics and public policy. International relation can be positive or normative since it can seek to asses and formulate international policy of a given nation. It is always taken as a branch of political science. International politics is a significant field of study in political science. It normally takes into account world’s foreign affairs, international organization, human rights and international trade (Jervis, 2010). International politics and foreign policy decision making Foreign policy decision making entails analysis and assessment of previous and current data. Foreign policy has several aspects such as political, external and internal security-related, economic incorporating commercial and societal. These aspects normally have a bearing on every society. An effective foreign policy’s conduct protects and develops the interests of a nation and contributes to preservation and development of individuals’ status and power minus being unduly harmful to the national interests, status and power of other people. The process of foreign policy is more complicated than in the past. The complexity is due to emergence of moral issues such as democracy, human rights, and disarmament as vital components of political foreign policy’s aspect. The complexity can also be due to greater concentration on non-political aspects such as environmental and economic. The current complexities of security aspect can be due to production of mass destruction’s weapons and the never-reducing fears from trans-national religions, groups of terrorists and smuggling gangs to the national and regional security (Mintz & DeRouen, 2010). D'Anieri (2011) argues that the trend towards bigger trans-nationalization of decision making process can bring about complexity in the process of foreign policy. This is because the effect on the process of a nation’s international membership and regional organization. The enhancing confident role of nationwide and transnational non-nation actors such as non-governmental organization can cause complexity in the process of foreign policy. The process of foreign policy can be complicated by insatiable desire from non-state actors and other parts of the public for accountability and transparency. The complexity can also be because of the role of printed and electronic media and internet in creating greater awareness of database of foreign policy process and in giving yardsticks in which the policy creation and adoption can be judged. The knowledge availability at mouse-tip contributed to greater non-state involvement in making and implementing policy and to an immediate and ever-constant scrutiny of policy making. As long as an individual has a clear understanding of national interests, then the following factors need to be considered for effective decision making. Essential storage of previous facts, analysis, experience and ability of rapid retrieval in order to utilize the current decision making Ability to gather latest data, open and secretive The accessibility of knowledge on how other nations are handling similar or comparable situations The quality of internal professionals and the availability of external professionals for analyzing and assessing the appropriate data The state policy-makers’ readiness in utilizing the foreign expertise actors has resulted in several innovations in policy making. Foreign expertise have always involved in confabulations. It is important to examine the positive and negative aspects of foreign policy decision making process relative to foreign in light of other countries experience so that the quality of decision making can be improved (Snyder & Sapin 1962). The unique significant contribution to international relation is to recognize theoretical intersection’s point among the most significant state behavior’s determinants that is material and ideational factors. The intersection’s point is not the nation. This is an area in which classic and contemporary international relation theory has a shortage and thus requiring some augmentation. The intersection’s point is always a human decision-maker. The elaboration and explanation of state behavior has suffered from ordinary fallacy of misplaced thickness or reification, demonstrated mainly by fine transformation of the word, state, from appropriate analytical concept into a symbol that allegedly stands for a solid entity, that is, an object or an individual that have an existence of its part from factual individuals and behaviors (D'Anieri, 2011). It is very important for human beings to participate in international relation. In case the international relation theory lacks human beings, the erroneously picture of the world with no change, no persuasion, no responsibility and no creativity will be displayed. A theoretical handstand for international relation has been suggested because of the claims analysis on individual human beings’ level is the key for understanding the state and system phenomena in international relations. It is therefore essential to define the state as an official decision maker. The actions of the state are the actions that are taken by people acting in the state’s name thus they state is their decision maker. State X as an actor is transformed into its decision maker as actors. It is also among the fundamental choices to assume prime analytical objective of recreating thee world’s decision makers. The way in which situations are defined is another way saying how the nation oriented to action. Adding therefore decision makers as the main theoretical intersection presents a number of advantages that were generally absent in international relation theory (Gallhofer & Saris 1996). There are several well-developed theoretical threads in international relation that examines phenomena such as systems, institutions, international politics and group dynamics. It is always important to refer to levels of analysis problem in international relational. Several theoretical efforts speculate can be well described by focusing on particular level of analysis such as international politics or international system. Efforts at integration are normally absent or even resisted. The formidable duty of weaving the threads together has been obstructed by insistence on retaining the nation as a metaphysical actor. In case a person replaces metaphysics with an advance reasonable conceptualization of actor, the weaving can become feasible. Mintz and DeRouen (2010) argues that the main concept of decision-making can offer a basis for associating a group of theories which until recently have been appropriate only to part of international politics. Through emphasizing decision-making as a main focus, it is essential to give away of preparing the action’s determinants around the officials who operate for political society. Decision makers are always viewed as working in dual-aspect setting such that visible internal and external factors that are not related become related in the decision-makers’ actions. The dual-aspect setting is common by a different name, that is, a two level game. The two level game states that decision-makers need to play a simultaneous game of domestic politics and that of international politics. This therefore implies that other theories such as the theory of how social constructions and cultural factors in a culture affect the behavior of the state, have not been developed well in international relation and can be tried with a greater likelihood of success. It is very important for international relation theory to address the culture issue. all conceptual program for assessing the behavior of the state need to attempt to take into consideration the effect of cultural patterns on decisions. In case the decision maker is observed as a culture-bearer, it can be probable to put a foundation for tracking the possible impacts of ordinary value orientation held by many members of the society on the deliberation of decisional units’ members. The move toward putting human decision-makers in the middle of theoretical matrix can permit theorist to relate the social constructions that are present in a given culture. The long-standing cultural factors’ neglect by international relation theorists stemmed from the caginess to develop the move. According to Jervis (2010), International relation has several tasks to undertake. State X can orient to act according to the way in which a given situation is observed by particular officials and according to what they desire. Other actors’ actions, the goals and means of the actors and other part of the situation that is associated significantly by the actor. The official action moves from the situation’s definition. The scenario developed by human decision makers is thus defined as theoretical integration’s engine. Currently, international relation theory gives a more insight into the structure than agency. This is a serious theoretical handicap since the lack of healthy agent’s concept in international relation implies to be at a disadvantage when attempting to describe or project essential change and remarkable originality in international relations. Implementation of action-situational analysis makes it probable to emphasize that the behavior of the state can be determined in away that deterministic explanations can be avoided. Some of the uncomfortable problems of objective-subjective dilemma can be prevented by effort to see the globe via the eyes of decision-maker. Though the state have been discarded as a metaphysical abstraction, it is important to stick to the nation-state as fundamental unit of analysis. It is always very hard to struggle with accountability issue in international affairs especially when theoretical language cannot, in factual fashion, connect human agency’s acts in realm to the thereof consequences. A standing international court for trying people who have committed crimes against humanity is currently suggesting that the wider world community hungers after ideational frameworks that manifest the agency embedded in international affairs (D'Anieri, 2010). It is essential to move past explanation or postulation of normal law-like generalizations of behavior of the state to a fuller and satisfying description of the behavior of the state that needs an accountability of human beings’ contribution. Social science is not similar to physical sciences since analyzing humans as social beings posses an agency. Elaboration of agency’s act or declaration that natural law is functioning in a given case of agency’s use cannot be fully satisfied. It is always known that agency implies the agent can operate in some other ways. The important thing to consider is the anthropology of international relation that explore into agency-oriented concepts as emotion, motivation and representation of a problem. It is believed that the phenomena studied in international politics’ field can be interpreted and significantly associated by means of decision-making approach. It is important to know clearly that not all valuable work within the field of international politics need to or can be done in the framework of decision making. The qualification however is crucial if a person desires to explore questions underlying the conditions, events and patterns of interaction that rest on state action, thus analysis of decision making is certainly important. This therefore implies that that question cannot be answered minus analysis of decision making. The suggested incommensurability of normal choice is common and unfortunate. Important rational models of normal actions have been proposed by various economists. In the model, the acted is predicted as rationally behaving and possessing complete information. These however are not enough to apply in situations that are characterized by uncertainty, risk and incomplete information (D'Anieri, 2009). Conclusion From the discussion it is very clear that international politics and foreign policy decision making are essential in international relations. Foreign policy entails several aspects such as political, external and internal security-related, economic incorporating commercial and societal. Currently the process of foreign policy is always complicated. Participation of human beings in international relation is very essential. Several theoretical efforts speculate can be well described by focusing on particular level of analysis such as international politics or international system. International relation theory of late provides a more insight into the structure than agency. Even Though the state have been discarded as a metaphysical abstraction, it is always essential to stick to the nation-state as fundamental unit of analysis. An important thing to take into account is the anthropology of international relation that explore into agency-oriented concepts such as emotion, motivation and representation of a problem. References Mintz A & DeRouen R.K. (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gallhofer I. N. & Saris E.W. (1996). Foreign policy decision-making: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of political argumentation. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Snyder C. R. & Sapin M. B. (1962). Foreign policy decision-making (revisited). London: Palgrave Macmillan. D'Anieri P. (2011). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. London: Cengage Learning. Jervis R. (2010). International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. London: Longman. D'Anieri P. (2010). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, Brief Edition. London: Cengage Learning. D'Anieri P. (2009). International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, International Edition. New York: Wadsworth. Read More