Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Commentary and Analysis Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 3 Years

1. The Involvement of Civil Society Organizations in Arctic Governance

Author:
Emilie Broek, Nicholas Olczak, and Lisa Dellmuth
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
The Arctic is faced with growing environmental and geopolitical challenges, which require international governance involving a range of actors. Existing research has a limited understanding of the role played by civil society organizations (CSOs) in the emerging governance of the region. This SIPRI Insights paper has reviewed the existing literature and used novel survey data to analyse the involvement of CSOs in terms of their roles and their beliefs in Arctic governance. It finds that CSOs monitor agreements and push for regional accountability, support the implementation of policies, engage in advocacy work, support information sharing and provide input during geopolitical crises. It also finds that CSOs have weak levels of belief in the legitimacy of Arctic governance institutions, or in the appropriateness and impact of their governance of the region. Based on these findings, the paper makes recommendations for the further involvement of CSOs in Arctic governance.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Civil Society, Governance, Geopolitics, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Arctic and Global Focus

2. Foresight and its application in ministries of foreign affairs

Author:
Javier Ignacio Santander
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Argentine Council for International Relations (CARI)
Abstract:
Based on previous research regarding foresight capabilities of ministries of foreign affairs, this work focuses on the modern concept of foresight and of its application to foreign relations. Specifically, it aims to provide a summary of similiarities observed in the way in which foreign affairs ministries have developed foresight capacity.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Government, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Spheres of Influence in a Multipolar World

Author:
Andrew Latham
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Defense Priorities
Abstract:
Throughout the modern era, great powers have routinely staked out geographic zones within which they have limited the autonomy of weaker states—often as buffer zones between themselves and potential adversaries or rival empires. Since the nineteenth century, these geopolitical spaces have typically been referred to as spheres of influence. The specific configuration of such spheres depends largely on the distribution of power in the international system. During moments of multi-polarity, multiple great powers will attempt to assert spheres of influence; during the Cold War era of bipolarity, the international order was defined by two superpower-dominated spheres; during the post-Cold War moment of unipolarity, the U.S. alone was able to assert a sphere of influence. Given this, it was inevitable that the return of multipolarity from the 2010s on would result in the crystallization of a new, multipolar, configuration of spheres of influence—one involving multiple great powers each asserting their own sphere. The relevant question now, therefore, is not if the transition to a world of multiple spheres of influence will take place (given the structural changes at the level of international order, it most certainly will), but how Washington should manage this development in ways that are both realistic and conducive to U.S. interests. The most realistic answer to this how question is to adopt a differentiated strategy that recognizes that, while the U.S. will not be able to prevent spheres of influence as a feature of international order tout court, it may be able to thwart specific spheres in certain specific circumstances.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Multipolarity, and International Order
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

4. A Roundtable on Christopher Dietrich, A Companion to U.S. Foreign Relations

Author:
Thomas W. Zeiler, Grant Madsen, Lauren F. Turek, and Christopher Dietrich
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR)
Abstract:
When David Anderson, acting as a conduit for editors at the Journal of American History, approached me at a SHAFR meeting in 2007 to write a state-of- the-field essay, I accepted, in part because we were sitting in a bar where I was happily consuming. The offer came with a responsibility to the field. I was serving as an editor of our journal, Diplomatic History, as well as the editor of the digitized version of our bibliography, American Foreign Relations Since 1600: A Guide to the Literature. Because these positions allowed me to survey our vibrant field, accepting the offer seemed natural. And I was honored to be asked to represent us. Did I mention we were drinking? I’m sure that Chris Dietrich accepted the invitation to oversee this next-gen pioneering Companion volume from Peter Coveney, a long-time editorial guru and booster of our field at Wiley-Blackwell, for similar reasons. This, even though there were times when, surrounded by books and articles and reviews that piled up to my shoulders in my office (yes, I read in paper, mostly), I whined, cursed, and, on occasion, wept about the amount of sources. What kept me going was not only how much I learned about the field, including an appreciation for great scholarship written through traditional and new approaches, but both the constancy and transformations over the years, much of it due to pressure from beyond SHAFR that prompted internal reflections. Vigorous debate, searing critiques, sensitive adaptation, and bold adoption of theory and methods had wrought a revolution in the field of U.S. diplomatic history, a moniker itself deemed outmoded.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, History, and Diplomatic History
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

5. Treaty Allies Matter for US Foreign Policy Experts—but They Are Not Indispensable

Author:
Sibel Oktay, Paul Poast, Dina Smeltz, and Craig Kafura
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Abstract:
The Council's polling experts examine how American foreign policy experts think of the term "allies," and whether variations in thinking matter for US foreign policy decisions. “America is back,” President Joseph Biden pronounced at the State Department in February 2021. His comment ostensibly meant the United States was returning to the international fold after leaving a global leadership void during the Trump years. The previous administration had downplayed—even discounted—American alliances as key US foreign policy tools. “We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s,” Biden stated. At the NATO summit four months later, Biden reiterated his administration’s key message and commitment to the alliance. Emblematic of this commitment, he and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also signed a “New Atlantic Charter” recommitting both nations to their “alliances and partners.” The United States is unique in the world in terms of security alliances. The country enjoys “the largest and most enduring military footprint” in recent history. From military bases to providing training and material assistance, this footprint is largely enabled through allies. Hence, it is perhaps unsurprising that recent surveys show a perception among Americans that alliances largely benefit the United States. But what is meant by the term “allies”? Given the variety of military partnerships and relationships maintained by the United States, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the term “ally” is used to describe countries across this range of relationships. Some countries have a formal defensive treaty with the United States, while others are merely recipients of US military financial aid. How do American foreign policy experts think of the term “allies,” and does variation in such thinking matter?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Public Opinion, Partnerships, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America