Abstract
In one of the few genuinely theoretical contributions to the study of foreign policy, James Rosenau (1987) has called for its country-specific theorization. If foreign policy is to differ from international theory at all, it must do so by refusing to gloss over the particularities of the foreign policies of individual states. Where international theory can afford to focus on ‘broader systemic patterns’, foreign policy theory collects the windfall. It gains its distinctive character by shedding light on the complex enmeshment of foreign policy processes in historical, cultural and institutional factors, which are in no small part peculiar to the specific state under scrutiny. Against this background, Rosenau’s injunction seems almost self-evident. Yet, even if we were in possession of a number of foreign policy theories approximating the number of sovereign states this would leave us in a state of dissatisfaction, if these individual theories remained unconnected. Theorizing the foreign policy of individual states seems to be at the same time necessary and insufficient, for any account of a state’s foreign policy involves at least an implicit conception of its (global) environment. How exactly the global environment is understood, however, crucially shapes the possibilities of foreign policy theory. Foreign policy understood to take place in an international system of states equipped with asymmetric material capabilities will look vastly different from a foreign policy understood to take place in a post-national constellation characterized by the struggle for supranational forms of constitutionalization, or a functionally differentiated world society where the autopoietic closure of function systems operating on a global level makes a state-centric focus appear atavistic.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albert, M. (2002) Zur Politik der Weltgesellschaft. Politik und Recht im Kontext internationaler Vergesellschaftung (Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft).
Allison, G. and Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Reading: Longman).
Banchoff, T. (1999) ‘German Identity and European Integration’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:(3), 259–289.
Bartelson, J. (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Berger, T. U. (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press).
Carlsnaes, W. (2008) ‘Actors, Structures, and Foreign Policy Analysis’, in Smith, S., A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds.) Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 85–100.
Carr, E. H. (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939 (Harmondsworth: Harper Perennial).
Crawford, B. (2007) Power and German Foreign Policy: Embedded Hegemony in Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Doty, R. L. (1993) ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly, 37:(3), 297–320.
Duffield, J. (1999) ‘Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism’, International Organization, 53:(4), 765–803.
Elias, N. (1997) Über den Prozess der Zivilisation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Elias, N. (1989) Studien über die Deutschen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Engelmann-Martin, D. and T. Risse (2002) ‘Identity Politics and European Integration. The Case of Germany.’, in Padgen, A. (ed.) The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 287–316.
Foucault, M. (2004) Sicherheit, Territorium, Bevölkerung. Geschichte der Gouvernementalität I (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Gujer, E. (2007). Schluss mit der Heuchelei. Deutschland ist eine Großmacht (Hamburg: Körber-Stiftung).
Haftendorn, H. (2006) Coming of Age: German Foreign Policy since 1945 (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield).
Harnisch, S. and Maull, H. W. (eds). (2001) Germany as a Civilian Power? The Foreign Policy of the Berlin Republic (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Hellmann, G. (2009a) ‘IR/Foreign Policy Theory and German Foreign Policy’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 12:(3), 251–156.
Hellmann, G. (2009b) ‘Fatal Attraction? German Foreign Policy and IR/Foreign Policy Theory’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 12:(3), 257–292.
Hudson, V. (2005) ‘Foreign Policy Analysis. Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 1:(1), 1–30.
Jackson, P. Th. and Nexon, D. H. (2002) ‘Globalization and the Comparative Method’, in Green, D. (ed.) Constructivism in Comparative Politics (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe), 88–120.
Kessler, O. (2009) ‘Toward a Sociology of the International? International Relations between Anarchy and World Society’, International Political Sociology, 3:(1), 87–108.
Kessler, O. (2012) ‘On Logic, Intersubjectivity, and Meaning: Is Reality an Assumption We Just Don’t Need?’ Review of International Studies, 38:(1), 253–265.
Koselleck, R. (2003) ‘Deutschland — Eine Verspätete Nation?’, in Koselleck, R., (ed.) Zeitschichten (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp), 359–380.
Kratochwil, F. (2007) ‘Re-thinking the “Inter” in International Politics’, Millennium, 35:(3), 495–511.
Lepenies, W. (2006) Kultur und Politik. Deutsche Geschichten (München: Hanser).
Luhmann, N. (1997) Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Luhmann, N. (1980) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik I (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Maull, H. W. (2000) ‘Germany and the Use of Force: Still a “Civilian Power”?’ Survival, 42:(2), 56–80.
Morgenthau, H. (ed.) (1951) Germany and the Future of Europe (Chicago: Chicago University Press).
Neumann, I. (2007) ‘When Did Norway and Denmark Get Distinctively Foreign Policies?’ Cooperation and Conflict, 42:(1), 53–72.
Oevermann, U. (1991) ‘Genetischer Strukturalismus und das Problem der sozialwissenschaftlichen Erklärung des Neuen’, in Müller-Doohm, S. (ed.) Jenseits der Utopie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp), 267–336.
Osiander, A. (2001) ‘Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth’, International Organization, 55:(2), 251–287.
Plessner, H. (2001) Die verspätete Nation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Rosenau, J. N. (1971) The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press).
Rosenau, J. N. (1987) ‘Toward Single-Country Theories of Foreign Policy: The Case of the USSR’, in Hermann, Ch. F., Ch. W. Kegley Jr., and J. N. Rosenau (eds.) New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen & Unwin), 53–74.
Rosenau, J. N. (2005) ‘A Declaration of Interdependence’, International Studies Perspectives, 6:(1), C3.
Rosenberg, J. (2006) ‘Why Is There No International Historical Sociology?’ European Journal of International Relations, 12:(3), 307–340.
Schöllgen, G. (2004) Der Auftritt. Deutschlands Rückkehr auf die Weltbühne (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag).
Schwarz, H.-P. (1985) Die gezähmten Deutschen. Von der Machtbesessenheit zur Machtvergessenheit (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt).
Schwarz, H.-P. (2005) Republik ohne Kompass. Anmerkungen zur deutschen Außenpolitik (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag).
Smith, Steve (1986) ‘Theories of Foreign Policy: An Historical Overview’, Review of International Studies, 12:(1), 13–29.
Stichweh, R. (2000) Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Teschke, B. (2002) ‘Theorizing the Westphalian System of States: International Relations from Absolutism to Capitalism’, European Journal of International Relations, 8:(1), 5–48.
Teschke, B. (2003) The Myth of 1648 (London: Verso).
Tickner, A. B., and Wæver, O. (eds.) (2009) International Relations Scholarship around the World (London: Routledge).
Tilly, C. (1992) Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Tilly, C. (1985) ‘War-Making and State-Making as Organized Crime’, in Evans, P. B., D. Rueschemeyer, and Th. Skocpol (eds.) Bringing the State Back in (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 169–191.
Wæver, O. (1996) ‘Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy’, available at: www.ciaonet.org/wps/wao01/ (last accessed: 26 February 2015).
Wæver, O. (2002) ‘Security: A Conceptual History for International Relations’, Paper Presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, 24–27 March (New Orleans).
Walker, R. B. J. (1993) Inside/Outside (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley).
Weldes, Jutta. (1996) ‘Constructing National Interests’, European Journal of International Relations, 2:(3), 275–318.
Zehfuss, M. (2007) Wounds of Memory: The Politics of War in Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Benjamin Herborth
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Herborth, B. (2015). Do We Need 195 Theories of Foreign Policy?. In: Hellmann, G., Jørgensen, K.E. (eds) Theorizing Foreign Policy in a Globalized World. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431912_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137431912_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-68290-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-43191-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Intern. Relations & Development CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)