首页> 外文学位 >Adversaries and statecraft: Explaining U.S. foreign policy toward rogue states.
【24h】

Adversaries and statecraft: Explaining U.S. foreign policy toward rogue states.

机译:对手和治国方言:解释美国对流氓国家的外交政策。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Though the U.S. has often claimed that rogue states' foreign policies, adventurism abroad, support for transnational terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction threaten American interests, constructive engagement and positive inducements are often ruled out as foreign policy tools to address disconcerting behavior. This is often done with little regard for their potential to achieve desirable outcomes. States perceived as threatening U.S. interests are often sanctioned and isolated to the extent that opening a dialogue to address issues of concern becomes very difficult. While considerable attention has been paid to foreign policy strategies such as containment, sanctions, and coercive diplomacy, the issues of constructive engagement and positive inducements have received less scrutiny in international relations. Why is engagement preferred under certain circumstances and when dealing with certain states but rejected in other situations? Why is engagement as an option discounted when it offers the potential to achieve favorable outcomes for the United States? Why is there a perceptible reticence to use positive inducements as a foreign policy tool?;This dissertation develops a framework that integrates domestic-level variables with systemic factors to explain U.S. action choices. It specifically considers how the United States chooses tools of statecraft when dealing with adversaries. Examining case studies of U.S. dealings with Libya, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, I find that fear, uncertainty, ideology, and ambivalence on the part of decision-makers often drives them towards policies that are isolationist and counterproductive. I transform these domestic-level elements into variables and influencers that interact with structural pressures in multiple explanatory mechanisms. I find four factors are central to producing isolationist outcomes: elite power; ideology; uncertainty and information gaps; and history and legacies.
机译:尽管美国经常声称流氓国家的外交政策,国外的冒险主义,对跨国恐怖主义的支持以及大规模杀伤性武器的扩散威胁着美国的利益,但建设性的参与和积极的诱因经常被视为解决令人不安的行为的外交政策工具。通常这样做时很少考虑到他们取得理想结果的潜力。人们通常认为,威胁美国利益的国家会受到制裁和孤立,以致于开展对话以解决令人关注的问题变得非常困难。尽管对遏制,制裁和强制性外交等外交政策战略给予了极大关注,但建设性参与和积极诱因问题在国际关系中受到的审查较少。为什么在某些情况下和与某些州打交道时会优先选择参与,而在其他情况下会拒绝呢?当参与可以为美国带来有利的结果时,为什么将参与作为一种选择打折呢?为什么在使用积极诱因作为外交政策工具时会保持沉默呢?;本文建立了一个框架,将国内变量与系统性因素结合起来,以解释美国的行动选择。它专门考虑了美国在与对手打交道时如何选择治国之道。在审查美国与利比亚,伊朗,叙利亚和朝鲜的往来案例研究时,我发现决策者的恐惧,不确定性,意识形态和模棱两可经常促使他们朝着孤立主义和适得其反的政策迈进。我将这些国内层面的要素转化为变量和影响因素,这些因素和影响因素在多种解释机制中与结构压力相互作用。我发现四个因素对于产生孤立主义的结果​​至关重要:精英力量;思想;不确定性和信息差距;历史和遗产。

著录项

  • 作者

    Fields, Jeffrey.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Southern California.;

  • 授予单位 University of Southern California.;
  • 学科 Political Science International Law and Relations.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 399 p.
  • 总页数 399
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号