Traditional Approach In Foreign Policy :

Being knowledgeable about a government's foreign policies includes understanding its

history or at least its context, understanding the interests and concerns that inspire the
policies, and considering the various approaches to addressing and defending those
interests and concerns. It also involves an ability to recognize the circumstances under
which a government must operate in carrying out its foreign policy.
It could be said that a satisfactory grasp of country's foreign policy is best achieved by
direct knowledge of its government's foreign affair.The next best thing would involve
trying to put oneself into the mindset of such an official. Foreign policy analysis was
traditionally the domain of diplomatic historians and public commentators. The main
writers on this subject were historians, jurist and and philosophers. Some were
practitioner such as Machiavelli, Grotius, George Kennan and Henry Kissimger. It
was the realm of ‘high politics‘ defined and guided by the reasons pf state, now more
commonly labelled ‘national interests‘.
Examples:
1. Military power: The traditional approach emphasizes the use of military power to
achieve foreign policy goals. This can include the use of force to protect national
security, deter aggression, or pursue strategic objectives.
1. Sovereignty: The traditional approach places a high value on national sovereignty,
which refers to a country's right to govern itself without interference from external
forces. This means that foreign policy decisions are often made with the goal of
preserving or enhancing national sovereignty.
Conclusion:
Overall, the traditional approach to foreign policy is often focused on protecting a
country's interests and projecting its power in the global arena. While this approach
can be effective in achieving short-term goals, it has also been criticized for its
emphasis on military force and its tendency to prioritize national interests over global
cooperation and collaboration.
The Comparative Approach In Foreign Policy:
The comparative approach in foreign policy is a method of analyzing and evaluating
the foreign policies of different countries by comparing them to each other. This
approach involves identifying similarities and differences in the foreign policies of
different countries, and using these comparisons to understand the factors that shape
foreign policy decision-making. It was theoretically informed by James Rosenau‘s
pre-theory of foreign policy. Rosenau grouped them into five categories which he
called: idiosyncratic,role, governmental, societal, and systematic variables. He then
proposed a ranking of the relative importance of these variables. Rosenau‘s pre-theory
never emerged as a clear explanation of foreign policy. It remained a classification
scheme.
Example: One possible example is comparing the foreign policies of the United States
and China in the Indo-Pacific region. Both countries have a significant economic and
military presence in the region, and their foreign policies are closely watched by other
countries in the region. A comparative analysis could look at the objectives,
strategies,allies and partners, challenges and risks.
The Bureaucratic structures and processes approach :
The bureaucratic structures and processes approach to foreign policy is a theoretical
perspective that seeks to explain how government agencies and departments work
together to formulate and implement foreign policy. This approach emphasizes the
role of bureaucratic institutions in shaping foreign policy outcomes, rather than
focusing solely on the decisions of individual leaders or diplomats.
The best-study of this kind is Graham Allison‘s book ‘Essence of Decision‘. The
analysis suggests three different and complementary ways of understanding America
decision making during that crisis. Despite criticism, Allison‘s three models have
informed much research for foreign policy.
Example: One example of a bureaucratic structures and processes approach to foreign
policy can be seen in the decision-making process of the United States government
leading up to the Iraq War in 2003.
At the time, the U.S. government was led by President George W. Bush, and his

administration included a number of high-level officials with varying degrees of

expertise in foreign policy and national security. To make decisions about the war, the

administration relied on a number of different bureaucratic structures and processes,

including: The National Security Council (NSC), The Department of Defense (DoD),

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Congressional committees.

Overall, the decision-making process leading up to the Iraq War was heavily

influenced by bureaucratic structures and processes. Nevertheless, the final decision to

go to war was made by President Bush, based on the advice and information provided

by the various bureaucratic actors involved.

Cognitive or psychological approach

It focused once again on the individual decision maker, this time paying close

attention to psychological factors like actor perceptions. Robert Jervis investigated

misperception, asking why actors sometimes get the intentions and behaviour of

others wrong.

Jervis cites a number of causes: actors are influenced by deep, pre-existing ideas (such

as the tendency to see other states as more hostile than they actually are), thus they see

what they want to see rather than what is actually happening; they practise "wishful

thinking," as well. The work of Margaret Herman is another illustration in this genre.

She examined the personality traits of 54 heads of state, arguing that understanding

the behaviour of these leaders in terms of foreign policy requires consideration of a

variety of elements, including their political philosophies, political socialisation, and

worldviews. Cognitive theory focuses on how individuals and small groups engage in

decision making processes. Cognition theories focus on how people pay attention to,

analyse, store, and recall information. On the other hand, positivist theory is often

accepted by researchers in cognitive psychology who aim to apply scientific

procedures to arrive at universal theories of human decision-making that resemble

laws and may be falsified. The majority of cognitive methods to FPA make the

assumption that humans are procedurally rational, yet the bounded form of rationality

and the fundamental variety clearly disagree. It is true that cognitive processes and

personality traits vary throughout a population.

Examples:

Nevertheless, most psychology studies involve participants from WEIRD states:

Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.1 Furthermore, individuals

from the United States make up a disproportionate number of participants in

psychology experiments and FPA studies, and may be outliers even among their

Western counterparts.

Cognitively oriented researchers doing FPA have made contributions to many areas of

the field. Five of these contributions are addressed here. The first is research into how
foreign policy decision makers think of themselves, others, and the practice of

politics. The second involves studies of cognitive biases and heuristics that affect how

political actors reason about information. The most prominent work in this area,

addressed in the third section, has been research into how decision makers calculate

the expected risks, costs, and benefits of their policy actions. Fourth is research into

whether and how policymakers learn. Last is an examination of how group context

and emotion moderate cognitive processes. For example we can assume the behavior

of George Bush and Saddam hussein at the time of Iraq invasion in Iraq that why the

war was the only option for Bush, what were their thinking, it means that in this

approach we study psychological behaviours of state actors when they take any

decision or they go to war.

Multi level and multi dimensional approach

Over the past few decades, as it became increasingly obvious that there would never

be one comprehensive theory of foreign policy, just as there isn't one comprehensive

theory of IR, the "multilevel and multidimensional approach" was established. Many

scholars now study particular aspects of foreign policymaking by using the various

major theories. Examples of that include research on the behaviour of the balance of

power and on terrorism and security issues, both of which use realist methodologies.

The game theory-based strategic realism of Thomas Schelling focuses emphasis to

choosing foreign policy.

Examples:

The United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a nuclear arms race during

the Cold War, it was most successfully used in strategic studies during that time.

Liberals research complex interconnection, the function of international institutions,

integration processes, and democratisation pathways. According to the liberal

perspective, each of these factors contributes in its own unique way to foreign policies

that are more focused on peaceful collaboration and mutual gain. The three traditions

of realism, rationalism, and revolutionism are traced by scholars from the

International Society, who also consider how they affect foreign policy. On the other

hand Neo-Marxists emphasise the relationship between the core and the periphery in

IPE and they point to the vulnerable situation of undeveloped, developing states in

comparison to the core states as the primary cause for their lack of flexibility in

foreign policy. In conclusion this approach clearly defines us that to analyze foreign

policy we have to study different theories and ideologies, we can't depend on only one

theory.

Social constructivist approach

A focus on the role of ideas, discourse, and identity is characteristic of a social

constructivist approach to foreign policy analysis.

Constructivists view the formulation of foreign policy as an intersubjective world

whose ideas and discourse may be examined in order to develop a more

comprehensive theoretical knowledge of that process. Since many activities are

communicated through speech and writing, they follow the influence of policymakers'

ideas and discourse on the procedures and results in foreign policy (Goldstein and

Keohane 1993). "Strategic culture" is an illustration of how ideas have an impact. A

more enduring set of principles about how to use military force in conducting

international affairs tends to emerge through time in countries; this set of principles is

known as the strategic culture. According to a study by Henrik Lindbo Larsen, the

differences between the strategic cultures of France, Britain, and Germany can be used

to explain why it is difficult to develop an uniform European Security and Defense

Policy. The notion that ideas are one of many elements determining foreign policy

does not satisfy a more ambitious interpretation of constructivism.

Example:

These constructivists argue that identity, which is rooted in speech and ideas, serves as

the foundation for the defining of interests and, therefore, forms the basis of all

foreign policy. Some constructivists concentrate on the conversation and speech of

states, while others concentrate on the domestic sources of ideas and identities. Like

we can clearly understand the foreign policy of putin by his personality, his speech

gestures and what type of decision he makes, how he communicate with other states

actors.