International Relations 101: Foreign Policy Analysis Tools of Foreign Policy Diplomacy Economic Sanctions Military Force Covert Action

What This Is

The tools of foreign policy refer to the various methods states use to achieve their objectives in the international system. These tools include diplomacy, economic sanctions, military force, and covert action. Understanding the tools of foreign policy is crucial for grasping how states interact and how global events unfold. For instance, the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) is a prime example of diplomacy in action, where the United States, Iran, and other world powers negotiated a complex agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for economic relief.

Key Theories, Concepts & Thinkers

• Realism (Morgenthau, Waltz): States are the main actors in an anarchic system, and their primary concern is survival and power – explains why arms races persist despite peace talks. Contemporary relevance: The ongoing tensions between the United States and China can be understood through a realist lens, where both states are vying for power and influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
• Liberal Institutionalism (Keohane, Nye): International institutions can promote cooperation and stability by providing a framework for states to interact and resolve disputes peacefully – underpins the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Union (EU). Contemporary relevance: The Paris Climate Accord is an example of liberal institutionalism in action, where states have come together to address a global challenge through international cooperation.
• Constructivism (Wendt, Finnemore): States' identities and interests are shaped by social and cultural norms, which can influence their behavior in the international system – explains why some states are more likely to engage in conflict than others. Contemporary relevance: The rise of nationalism in some countries can be understood through a constructivist lens, where changing social and cultural norms are driving states' behavior.
• Game Theory (Schelling, Axelrod): States make decisions based on rational calculations of costs and benefits, which can lead to cooperation or conflict – underpins the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) in nuclear deterrence. Contemporary relevance: The ongoing tensions between the United States and North Korea can be understood through a game-theoretic lens, where both states are engaged in a high-stakes game of nuclear deterrence.
• Cooperation Theory (Olson, Axelrod): States can cooperate to achieve common goals, even in the absence of a central authority – explains why states participate in international institutions and agreements. Contemporary relevance: The creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank can be understood through a cooperation theory lens, where states have come together to address global economic challenges.
• Deterrence Theory (Schelling, Kahn): States use threats and punishment to prevent others from taking certain actions – underpins the concept of nuclear deterrence and the use of military force. Contemporary relevance: The ongoing tensions between the United States and Russia can be understood through a deterrence theory lens, where both states are engaged in a high-stakes game of nuclear deterrence.
• Economic Interdependence Theory (Keohane, Nye): States' economic relationships can influence their behavior in the international system, leading to cooperation or conflict – explains why some states are more likely to engage in trade and investment than others. Contemporary relevance: The ongoing trade tensions between the United States and China can be understood through an economic interdependence theory lens, where both states are engaged in a high-stakes game of economic competition.

Step-by-Step Analysis

1. Identify the main actors and their interests: Who are the key states involved in the conflict or issue? What are their interests and goals?
2. Analyze the context: What is the historical and cultural context of the conflict or issue? How have previous events influenced the current situation?
3. Evaluate the tools of foreign policy: Which tools of foreign policy are being used by the main actors? How effective are these tools in achieving their objectives?
4. Consider the levels of analysis: Which level of analysis (individual, state, system) is most relevant to the conflict or issue? How do the different levels of analysis influence our understanding of the situation?
5. Assess the costs and benefits: What are the costs and benefits of each tool of foreign policy? How do these costs and benefits influence the decision-making process of the main actors?
6. Predict the outcome: Based on the analysis, what is the likely outcome of the conflict or issue? How might the outcome be influenced by the tools of foreign policy and the levels of analysis?

Common Misconceptions

• Misconception: The United Nations is a world government.
• Correction: The United Nations is an international organization that provides a forum for states to interact and resolve disputes peacefully, but it does not have the authority to make laws or enforce decisions.
• Example: The UN's role in the Korean War, where the organization provided a framework for states to come together and address a global challenge.
• Misconception: Sovereignty means absolute freedom to do anything.
• Correction: Sovereignty refers to a state's independence and autonomy, but it does not mean that states are free to act without consequences.
• Example: The concept of humanitarian intervention, where states may intervene in another state's affairs to prevent human rights abuses, even if it means violating that state's sovereignty.
• Misconception: All conflicts are about religion or culture.
• Correction: Conflicts can be caused by a variety of factors, including economic, political, and strategic interests.
• Example: The conflict in the Middle East, which is driven by a complex mix of economic, political, and strategic interests, as well as cultural and religious differences.

Exam / Essay Tips

• Typical question patterns: IR exams often ask students to analyze a case study or scenario using a specific theory or concept.
• Deploying theories in an argument: Students should be able to apply theories and concepts to real-world scenarios, using evidence and examples to support their arguments.
• Tricky distinctions: Students should be able to distinguish between different theories and concepts, such as anarchy vs. chaos, balance of power vs. bandwagoning, and hard power vs. soft power.
• Integrating historical and current examples: Students should be able to use historical examples to illustrate theoretical concepts and apply them to current events.

Quick Practice Scenario

Scenario: Two rising powers in the Asia-Pacific engage in a naval buildup. Using realism, explain the likely outcome. Which other IR theory would predict a different outcome and why?

Answer: Realism would predict that the two rising powers would engage in an arms race, as they seek to demonstrate their military power and influence in the region. A cooperation theory, on the other hand, would predict that the two powers would engage in diplomatic efforts to resolve their differences and prevent an arms race.

Last-Minute Cram Sheet

• Key theorists: Morgenthau, Waltz, Keohane, Nye, Wendt, Finnemore, Schelling, Axelrod, Olson
• Treaties: JCPOA, Paris Climate Accord, WTO, EU, IMF, World Bank
• Dates: 1648 (Westphalia), 1914 (World War I), 1945 (UN Charter), 1991 (end of Cold War)
• Acronyms: UN, WTO, EU, IMF, World Bank, NATO, JCPOA
• Trap distinctions: ⚠️ Anarchy vs. chaos (anarchy refers to the absence of a central authority, while chaos refers to a state of disorder or randomness)
• ⚠️ Balance of power vs. bandwagoning (balance of power refers to the distribution of power among states, while bandwagoning refers to the practice of joining a stronger state's alliance)
• ⚠️ Hard power vs. soft power (hard power refers to military and economic power, while soft power refers to cultural and ideological influence)