TARABA STATE UNIVERSITY

P.M.B 1167 JALINGO

FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND DIPLOMATIC STUDIES

ASSIGNMENT
COURSE CODE: HDS 104
COURSE TITLE: INTRODUCTION TO FOREIGN POLICY

BY
TSU/FART/HS/21/1083

QUESTION
EXAMINE OR DISCUSS THE THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY, BRINGING OUT
FOR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT IS INVOLVE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATION

COURSE LECTURER:
BABALE TANIMU SHITTA

INTRODUCTION

ASSIGNMENT ON HDS 104 BY TSU/FART/HS/21/1083 pg. 1

The academic discipline studying international relations (IR) is often subdivided into two
fields: “systemic” international relations, which provide for a bird’s-eye perspective on the
international system as a whole, and “subsystemic” foreign policy analysis (FPA), which
zooms in on the placement and actions of states considered to be the most fundamental unit
of this system. Views differ, however, as to how strongly this distinction should be
emphasized. In part this obviously depends on how one defines “foreign policy.” Conceptions
of foreign policy stretch from an emphasis on external actions of (state) governments to
practices of boundary drawing between political communities. The former notion leads
scholars to focus on such things as decision-making processes, whereas the latter tends to
emphasize the mutual implication of foreign policy agency and systemic reproduction and
transformation. In American IR the prevailing tendency is still to see two rather distinct
subfields, whereas scholarship outside the United States tends to emphasize the connections
and mutual dependencies between the fields. In any case, the distinction has affected (and
has, in turn, been affected by) how scholars conceive of “theory” in foreign policy analysis
and what it may mean to “theorize.” Generally speaking—and in contrast to systemic theories
—the subject matter of foreign policy is often thought to require more complex (or less
parsimonious) models or theories because many more factors or variables are deemed to be
relevant. Some scholars even argue that such complexities render foreign policy theories
primarily as tools for post-hoc explanation with little use for prediction, a crucial dimension
often associated with theories. Yet in the 21st century there is largely consensus among IR
scholars that some form of theoretical reflection has to play an integral part in analyzing
foreign policy irrespective of whether it is primarily a tool for explaining specific cases or
also one for prediction, whether it aims at general or country-specific theory. This survey,
therefore, aims at an overview of the field with an emphasis on both explicit forms of
theorization, as well as the broad varieties in understanding what such theorization might
entail.

WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY?

Foreign policy refers to a government's strategy in dealing with other nations and
international organizations. Theories of foreign policy are frameworks that explain how states
make decisions about their foreign policy objectives and actions. There are several theories of
foreign policy, including realism, liberalism, constructivism, and Marxism.

ASSIGNMENT ON HDS 104 BY TSU/FART/HS/21/1083 pg. 2

A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL REALTION

International relations (IR) are the interactions among sovereign states. The scientific

study of those interactions is called international studies, international
politics, or international affairs. In a broader sense, it concerns all activities among states—
such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other
international actors, such as intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international
legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of
thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.
International relations is widely classified as a major sub-discipline of political science, along
with comparative politics, political theory, political methodology, and public administration.

THE THEORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY, AND THE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

THAT IS INVOLVE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATION

These theories provide different perspectives on how states make foreign policy decisions
and what factors influence their choices.

1. Realism: This theory assumes that states are the primary actors in international
relations, and they act in their self-interest to maximize their power and security.
Realists believe that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no higher
authority to enforce rules or resolve conflicts. Therefore, states must rely on their own
military capabilities and alliances to protect themselves.
2. Liberalism: This theory emphasizes the importance of institutions, cooperation, and
diplomacy in international relations. Liberals believe that states can work together to
achieve common goals and resolve conflicts peacefully through negotiations and
agreements. They also emphasize the role of international law and human rights in
shaping foreign policy decisions.
3. Constructivism: This theory focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and identities in
shaping foreign policy decisions. Constructivists argue that states are not just rational
actors pursuing their self-interest, but they are also influenced by cultural, social, and
historical factors. They believe that foreign policy decisions are shaped by shared
beliefs and values among states.
4. Marxism: This theory emphasizes the role of economic factors in shaping foreign
policy decisions. Marxists argue that capitalist states are driven by the need to expand

ASSIGNMENT ON HDS 104 BY TSU/FART/HS/21/1083 pg. 3

 their markets and access resources, which often leads to imperialism and exploitation
of weaker states. They also emphasize the role of class struggle in shaping foreign
policy decisions.
5. Feminism: This theory emphasizes the role of gender in shaping foreign policy
decisions. Feminists argue that traditional foreign policy decision-making has been
dominated by men and male perspectives, which often neglects issues related to
women's rights and gender equality. They advocate for a more inclusive and gender-
sensitive approach to foreign policy.

Each of these schools of thought provides a different perspective on foreign policy and
highlights different factors that shape state behavior. While each school has its own strengths
and weaknesses, understanding their different perspectives can provide a more nuanced
understanding of the complexities of foreign policy decision-making.

One school of thought is realism, which emphasizes the importance of power and security in
international relations. Realists argue that states are motivated by self-interest and seek to
maximize their power and security. They believe that international politics is a zero-sum
game, where one state's gain is another state's loss. Realists also emphasize the importance of
military strength and alliances in maintaining security.

Another school of thought is liberalism, which emphasizes the importance of cooperation and
institutions in international relations. Liberals argue that states can achieve their goals
through cooperation and negotiation, rather than through conflict. They believe that
international institutions, such as the United Nations, can help to promote peace and stability
by providing a forum for dialogue and cooperation.
Constructivism is another school of thought in international relations that emphasizes the role
of ideas and norms in shaping foreign policy. Constructivists argue that states' identities and
interests are not fixed, but are shaped by social norms and ideas. They believe that diplomacy
and dialogue can help to create new norms and identities that promote peace and cooperation.
Other schools of thought include Marxism, which emphasizes the role of economic factors in
shaping foreign policy, and feminism, which emphasizes the importance of gender in
international relations.

One of the most prominent schools of thought in International Relations is Realism. Realists
believe that states are the primary actors in international relations and that they act in their
own self-interest to maximize their power and security. Realists also emphasize the

ASSIGNMENT ON HDS 104 BY TSU/FART/HS/21/1083 pg. 4

importance of military power and balance of power politics in maintaining stability in the
international system. Another important school of thought is Liberalism. Liberals believe that
cooperation and interdependence between states can lead to peace and prosperity. They
emphasize the importance of international institutions, such as the United Nations, in
promoting cooperation and resolving conflicts peacefully.

Constructivism is another school of thought that has gained prominence in recent years.
Constructivists argue that ideas, norms, and identities shape international relations just as
much as material factors such as military power or economic interests. They emphasize the
importance of socialization and learning processes in shaping state behavior. Other schools of
thought include Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Key theories of foreign policymaking include: the rational actor model,
prospect theory, poliheuristic theory, cybernetic theory, bureaucratic politics, and
organizational politics; and, at the group level, groupthink, polythink, and con-div. These
theories are based on unique decision rules, including maximizing, satisficing, elimination by
aspect, lexicographic, etc. A new, two-group model of foreign policy decision-making
includes a decision design group and a decision approval group. Theories of foreign policy
provide different perspectives on how states make decisions about their international
relations. Realism emphasizes power and national interest, liberalism emphasizes cooperation
and interdependence, constructivism emphasizes ideas and norms, while Marxism
emphasizes economic factors.

REFERENCES

[1] An address in Portland Oregon, 15 September 1919. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?

pid=117383

[2] Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York:
Norton, 1969.

[3] Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York:
Little Brown, 1971.

[4] Barry Buzan, An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The

Societal Approach, Cambridge: Polity, 2014.

ASSIGNMENT ON HDS 104 BY TSU/FART/HS/21/1083 pg. 5

[5] Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis,
Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998.

[6] Henry Kissinger, World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of
History, London: Allen Lane, 2014, espec. Pp 134-141.

ASSIGNMENT ON HDS 104 BY TSU/FART/HS/21/1083 pg. 6