Foreign Policy: A Study of Concepts, Trends, and Determinants

Summary:

This study addresses a central theme in international relations: foreign policy, which falls within the framework of state behaviors and external activities—external policies that shape international relations—aiming to achieve established objectives, whether short or long-term. By exploring the concept of foreign policy, it begins with defining foreign policy and differentiating it from related terms, ultimately discussing the process of foreign policy formulation.

The study also examines the trends in the roles that define states’ foreign policies according to the type of objectives outlined in a state’s foreign policy agenda, as well as the state’s physical and moral position. A state may adopt a regional or international stance depending on its geographical and vital sphere, seeking a role that allows it to achieve its strategic goals. It may also aim to affirm or change the current state of international relations in accordance with its strategies and national interests.

Keywords:

Foreign policy, international policy, international system, interventionist, non-interventionist, geographical and economic determinants, elite.

Introduction:

Foreign policy is considered one of the most important research areas in international relations because it crystallizes relationships between states. To understand these relations, one must understand foreign policy, which only became separate from international relations after the behavioral revolution. In the early 1960s, the phenomenon of foreign policy evolved significantly due to the multiplicity of issues, the growing number of international units, and diversity in the international system, granting its study great importance.

The significance of studying foreign policy is evident in understanding states’ external orientations in their relationships and explaining the reasons for the development of international policy into different patterns within the international system. Moreover, studying foreign policy enables us to uncover and understand the national strategies of states toward their external environments, be they major or regional powers, as well as their influence and the extent of their external roles. It also allows us to understand the reasons behind the weak roles of other states.

This study aims to clarify the ambiguity surrounding the concept of foreign policy by addressing its various definitions, leading to an operational definition, as well as identifying its key characteristics and trends, ultimately determining its determinants.

The study takes the form of a theoretical research paper to clarify the ambiguities surrounding the concept of foreign policy in general, answering the central question: What are the trends and determinants of foreign policy?

From this general issue, the following sub-questions arise:

• What is the concept of foreign policy?
• What are the characteristics of foreign policy?
• What are the trends in foreign policy?
• What are the important determinants of foreign policy?

To answer these questions, we test the following hypotheses:

• The more precise the concept of foreign policy, the more comprehensive its explanation of the reality of international politics.
• States’ foreign policies do not accept multiple orientations.
• The strength of states’ foreign policies is subject to the nature of their determinants.

To test the aforementioned hypotheses, we adopted a complex methodological approach combining descriptive methodology and the theoretical frameworks of realism and idealism in international relations.

The study is organized into three main sections as follows:

Section One: The Concept of Foreign Policy

1. Definition of Foreign Policy
2. The difference between foreign policy and related concepts.
3. The formation of foreign policy

Section Two: Characteristics and Trends of Foreign Policy

A. Characteristics of Foreign Policy B. Trends in Foreign Policy

Section Three: Goals and Determinants of Foreign Policy

1. Goals of Foreign Policy
2. Determinants of Foreign Policy

Section One: The Concept of Foreign Policy

This section discusses the concept of foreign policy, beginning with defining foreign policy and differentiating it from related concepts, and culminating in a discussion on the foreign policy formulation process.

1. Definition of Foreign Policy

Many thinkers have differed in precisely defining the concept of foreign policy due to the varying perspectives they adopt. Some definitions can be categorized into three main approaches.

First Approach: Foreign Policy as a Set of Programs

This perspective views foreign policy as a structured sequence of objectives and plans. One of the leading proponents of this approach is Charles F. Hermann, who defines foreign policy as “a set of externally oriented goals along with the plans for achieving them, formulated by official decision-makers of a state.”

Graham T. Allison supports this definition, noting that it is comprehensive in encompassing dimensions such as unity, formality, publicity, choice, goal-orientation, externality, and programmability.

While these characteristics help distinguish foreign policy as a structured public program, the definition can be seen as limiting. It tends to overlook the influences of both internal and external environments, which are essential for a complete understanding of foreign policy. Foreign policy is not merely about setting goals—it also involves the various behaviors and decisions of the policymaker in interaction with the broader environment.

Second Approach: Foreign Policy as Decision-Maker Behavior

This approach focuses on foreign policy as the concrete behaviors of official decision-makers. Again, Charles F. Hermann plays a key role in this school of thought, defining foreign policy as “the distinct official behaviors undertaken by government officials or their representatives with the aim of influencing the external behavior of others.”

Similarly, Christopher Hill defines foreign policy as “the purposeful and influential external political behavior of the decision-maker.”

Graham T. Allison, in his analysis, emphasizes the decision-making process, arguing that “state behavior is shaped by the decisions of individuals operating within bureaucratic frameworks. Foreign policy emerges as the product of competing interests and institutional constraints.”

These definitions effectively highlight the central role of decision-makers, but they risk conflating foreign policy with the decision-making process itself. Foreign policy extends beyond individual decisions—it includes the resulting actions and strategies directed toward the international environment. In this view, the behavior of the decision-maker constitutes the initial phase of foreign policy, which is then followed by the execution of actions and achievement of concrete goals.

Third Approach: Foreign Policy as Activity

Evolving from the focus on decision-maker behavior, a third approach defines foreign policy in terms of external activities carried out by states or actors representing them.

In this context, James Rosenau offers a broad and inclusive definition of foreign policy, considering it as “the sum of activities of a state or a variety of actors operating within or across state boundaries, aimed at managing its external environment and relationships.” This definition expands the scope of foreign policy beyond formal state actions to include a wider array of external engagements that influence or reflect a state’s position in the international system.

George Modelski defines foreign policy as “a system of activities developed by communities to alter the behavior of other states and to establish something coherent with the international environment through input and output activities.”

Marcel Merle defines foreign policy more succinctly as “that part of governmental activity directed outward, dealing with issues that arise beyond national borders.”

These definitions underscore the operational nature of foreign policy. However, not all external actions are aimed at changing the behavior of others; they may also seek to preserve the status quo. Moreover, foreign policy is not directed exclusively at other states—it may target international organizations, transnational corporations, diasporas, or other global actors.

Lastly, foreign policy does not always manifest in visible activity. Some states adopt strategies of neutrality or isolation, refraining from engagement with the external environment. This reinforces the idea that foreign policy is not necessarily defined by action—it can also be expressed through deliberate inaction or strategic restraint.

Operational Definition:

By scrutinizing the various definitions of foreign policy, a comprehensive definition can be provided: it is the sum of a state’s activities that result from its official interactions with various actors in the international system, according to a well-planned program with specific objectives, which aims to change the behaviors of other states or maintain the status quo in international relations. It is also influenced by internal and external environments.

2. The Difference Between Foreign Policy and Related Concepts:

A. Foreign Policy and International Relations: Robert Jackson argues that the concept of foreign policy is less comprehensive than that of international relations. Foreign policy encompasses the general orientations adopted at a particular historical moment or, more simply, the general orientations established when a new government assumes power. Foreign policy is the process by which any state implements its efforts to defend its national interests in order to achieve pre-established objectives.

Thus, foreign policy is produced within the state and is a reflection of its internal policy. In contrast, international relations, as defined by Marcel Merle, encompass “all flows that cross borders or even aspire to cross them, which can be described as international relations. These flows include not only the relationships of governments among these states but also relations between individuals and public or private groups on either side of the borders, as well as all traditional activities of governments including diplomacy, negotiations, and war, among others. However, it also encompasses other non-traditional flows—economic, ideological, demographic, sports, cultural, and tourism-related.”

The foreign policies of multiple states constitute part of international relations, as the actors in international relations are broader than states, including international organizations, multinational corporations, and more. Therefore, international relations are more comprehensive, representing the broader and wider interactions between multiple powers in the international system.

B. Foreign Policy and International Politics: James Rosenau defines international politics as “the interaction that inevitably leads to collisions and necessary entanglements due to differing goals and decisions issued from more than one political unit.” Despite the clarity of this definition and its recognition that international politics is the sum of interactions arising from multiple states, which can be described as the interaction of states’ foreign policies, it assigns a combative character to these interactions. This does not always distinguish international politics; it can also include harmonious and cooperative interactions between countries.

The key distinction between foreign policy and international politics is that the elements of foreign policy are individuals, institutions, and political parties, which differ from the elements of international politics represented by states, international organizations, and active groups. Hence, the analytical element in foreign policy differs from that in international politics.

International politics encompasses the interaction of all foreign policies of states, independent of other international actors and is broader than foreign policy. The sum of international policies shapes international relations.

C. Foreign Policy and Diplomacy: Diplomacy differs from foreign policy as the foreign policy of a state manages its activity in relations with other states, or the approach that a state follows in its political, commercial, economic, and financial dealings with other states, while diplomacy serves as the tool for executing foreign policy.

The Russian writer Tonkin defines diplomacy as “the activity (including content, procedures, and methods) that the state, public or private, engages in concerning foreign relations, practiced by heads of states, governments, foreign affairs administrations, special delegations, and diplomatic missions, achieving its foreign policy goals by peaceful means.” Moreover, diplomacy is characterized by its peaceful nature and employs peaceful means, while foreign policy can either be peaceful or aggressive, as it reflects the state’s consistency according to national interest.

3. The Making of Foreign Policy:

Formulating foreign policy requires a thorough understanding and study of the various factors and determinants that directly or indirectly influence the crafting of this policy. One of the first aspects the decision-maker faces is the accurate perception of the situation they are addressing, such as a sudden international crisis and the identification of a set of alternatives in light of this situation. Thus, the decision becomes a selection from available alternatives based on certain information related to the alternatives, with the decision assumed to yield the greatest benefits and the least losses. Enhanced media channels contribute to providing the necessary information mainly linked to the interaction between internal and external environments and significantly aid in studying and assessing alternatives related to decisions, as well as in persuading the public regarding foreign policy decisions—reflecting their interaction with the existing system and influencing it, while also conveying the public’s positions back to the decision-makers.

The process of making, adopting, and implementing decisions undergoes multiple stages, starting with a preparatory phase that involves identifying the main criteria, determining variables related to the subject (defining alternatives and collecting information), measuring the variables against the main criterion, choosing a goal and outlining a strategy for achieving that goal, followed by the decision-making phase where one alternative is selected for implementation—translating the decision into actionable steps through tangible actions, whether these actions are proactive or reactive. This is succeeded by a phase of feedback, evaluation, and drawing conclusions.

The decision-making process is undertaken by a range of official and unofficial bodies, primarily the legislative and executive authorities, varying in effectiveness depending on the nature of the political systems. The legislative authority often dominates the decision-making process in parliamentary systems, while the executive authority does so in presidential systems. In the field of foreign affairs, the executive authority plays a prominent role in shaping and clarifying foreign policy.

Unofficial agencies include political parties, interest groups, and public opinion, which do indeed influence foreign policy behaviors; however, in the end, official state bodies are responsible for crafting foreign policy.

Section Two: Characteristics and Trends of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy generally features the same characteristics, regardless of the nature of the state, but its trends differ from one state to another based on national aspirations and the nature of its political system.

A. Characteristics of Foreign Policy:

Foreign policy has characteristics that can be summarized as follows:

1. External Nature: This means that foreign policy is directed toward the external environment. Although foreign policy is crafted within state apparatuses (the internal environment), its execution and behavioral trajectory unfold in the external international environment. The external environment is the arena where these behaviors are tested, and where the goals outlined in foreign policy are achieved.
2. Official Nature: Officiality pertains to the fact that foreign policy is established by an official entity within the state. No unofficial body within the state can ultimately decide the direction of foreign policy. Despite the fact that individuals and unofficial entities hold views and opinions regarding foreign policy goals and interactions, and possess information and facts that may contribute to shaping these goals, they lack the official character necessary for formal reactions by the state to external issues.

The most significant body that imparts an official character to foreign policy is the executive authority, often represented by the head of state, the prime minister, the foreign minister, the minister of defense, and other officials representing state organs. Foreign policy is not only directed at traditional international units, as it can extend to modern international entities such as organizations, or politically significant parties, exemplified by Iran’s foreign policy supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria’s foreign policy backing Hamas against Israel.

3. Optional Nature: This means that “foreign policy programs and decisions are chosen from several proposed alternatives.” Any international stance does not necessarily require a sole and inevitable reaction from the concerned state, but rather that the state possesses a range of options and possible alternatives from which it selects according to its goals and national interests. Dr. Said Selim elucidates that “choosing” means that foreign policy is selected by those who claim to formulate it from among possible alternative policies. This choice encompasses three dimensions:

• The actual formulation of foreign policy is done by those tasked with the responsibility of defining it, typically the official entity in the state’s governance structure, while other actors in the political system do not have final authority over shaping the definitive foreign policy framework.
• The formulation of foreign policy involves a variety of alternative policies available to the policymaker, who then must choose among them.
• The foreign policy selected by the decision-maker exhibits flexibility, as the decision-maker possesses the ability to alter foreign policy when conditions and circumstances related to a specific stance change, thereby replacing previously selected policies with more suitable ones.

4. Unitary Nature: This implies that “foreign policy consists of those programs adopted by a single international unit toward other international units.” This dimension distinguishes foreign policy from international relations, as international relations assume interaction—i.e., action and reaction—between international units, while foreign policy denotes the strategy directed from one international unit toward other international units. The element of unity implies that a state’s response to a specific international situation is singular and cannot be multiple contradictory stances; for instance, Algeria’s position regarding the Western Sahara issue is a singular, consistent stance supporting Western Sahara’s independence.
5. Goal-Oriented Nature: Any “foreign policy must aim to achieve pre-planned objectives by the decision-maker, mobilizing all available resources to attain those goals.” From this perspective, foreign policy cannot merely be regarded as a reaction to the external environment; it is a deliberate and conscious process seeking to influence the external environment, enabling the state to be a primary actor in the international system or at the very least to achieve and maintain its national interests.

B. Trends in Foreign Policy:

A state generally follows a specific trend in its foreign policy, which may persist for varying periods based on how its national interests align with that trend according to the internal dynamics of the state and the surrounding international reality. States’ foreign policy trends also vary according to their strategic positions and their importance to other countries, as well as their significance and effectiveness on both regional and international levels.

1. Regional vs. Global Orientation:

The regional orientation directs the state’s foreign policy according to its geographical scope. Some countries pursue foreign policies focusing primarily on their regional areas while ignoring issues distant from their regions. For example, Egypt’s predominant foreign policy focus is the Middle East, along with Brazil’s foreign policy toward Latin America. Turkey’s foreign policy during the 1990s also concentrated on Central Asia and the Caucasus.

This orientation is accompanied by a significant image of the national role, namely that of a regional leader, whereby states endowed with substantial and diverse capabilities compared to others in their region take on such responsibilities, investing these capabilities to play an active role regionally. Key states pursuing this leadership role include Turkey and Iran, each seeking influence in Middle Eastern matters.

Conversely, the global orientation directs a state’s foreign policy toward international units outside its regional scope; the interests of such states span various parts of the world, including all regions. For instance, the United States has directed its foreign policy toward numerous global regions, notably the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe, especially since the end of World War II.

This global orientation is complemented by an important depiction of the national role through states that serve as leaders of a general international current or trend. These countries typically assume a leading role, particularly on the international stage, often reflecting a specific ideology or substantial resources enabling them to fulfill this role, as seen in the United States’ policy against terrorism and its role in promoting Western values such as democracy, often justifying wars to eliminate regimes perceived as threats to its national interests, exemplified by its invasion of Iraq and interventions in Sudan and Somalia.

2. Orientation Toward Maintaining or Changing Current International Relations:

This classification distinguishes foreign policy trends aimed at maintaining the current pattern of international relations from those seeking to transform it into an idealized model. The orientation towards maintaining or changing existing international relations applies not only to regional issues but encompasses various international matters worldwide. Resulting from the widespread dissemination of this orientation (maintenance/change), some realities of the international environment shift, such as patterns of international alliances, the structure of international economic interactions, and the relations among global powers.

Among the most notable policies that contribute to achieving the maintenance of the status quo is the policy of neutrality and non-alignment. These two policies were adopted by many countries that sought independence from the two competing poles during the Cold War, earning neutral and non-aligned states credibility amongst all sides, thus enabling them to leverage this position for the benefit of international peace and stability. A prominent example of this trend is Austria.

Policies aimed at changing the current state of international relations are characterized by alliances and international blocs. Each bloc seeks to incorporate as many states as possible to secure a dominant position in vital locations, consequently hindering opposing blocs from strengthening their defenses, facilitating their domination and elimination, as evident during the Cold War between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the latter collapsing with the fall of the Soviet Union.

3. Interventionist vs. Non-Interventionist Orientation: While the preceding trends classify foreign policy according to state’s objectives, this trend categorizes them based on the tools states utilize to implement their policies. This means assessing the extent to which a state employs interventionist tools to influence other international units.

The interventionist trend involves states striving to influence the policies of other units by intervening in their political power structures. This approach is often adopted by major and regional powers seeking influence and maintaining their national interests outside their territorial boundaries. Notable nations pursuing an interventionist approach include the United States concerning Latin America, France in the Great Lakes region, and Russia, alongside major regional powers such as Iran and Turkey, particularly during the Syrian crisis since 2011.

In the Arab sphere, key countries adopting an interventionist approach are Syria concerning Lebanon, where its intervention peaked before the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, as well as the Arab intervention (UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.) led by Saudi Arabia in Bahrain and Yemen.

The non-interventionist approach also seeks to affect other international units’ policies but does so without intervening in their political structures. This approach is commonly adopted by countries with balanced foreign policies, aiming to achieve the minimum of their interests without resorting to intervention; these states rely on formal agreements.

Notable examples of states implementing a non-interventionist foreign policy include Algeria’s stance towards Arab Spring countries since 2011 and Turkey’s policy toward the Middle East in the previous decade (2000-2010).

Discussing these three foreign policy orientations independently does not imply that a state’s adoption of one precludes its pursuit of others. It is possible to envision a combination of the three patterns of foreign policy orientations for a unit leading to a global approach focused on maintaining the status quo through interventionist means.

Section Three: Determinants of Foreign Policy

Foreign policy determinants refer to the various factors influencing the direction and formulation of any given state’s foreign policy. They also imply studying foreign policy as a dependent variable in light of a group of independent variables imposed by the internal and external environment’s realities. Foreign policy determinants vary, being categorized into internal and external factors.

A. Internal Determinants: These are the elements located within a state’s territorial framework and are connected to its structural and personal makeup, enabling the state to outline and define the objectives and directions of its foreign policy.

Internal determinants include geographic determinants, human determinants, personal determinants, societal determinants, political determinants, and military determinants.

1. Geographic Determinants: These encompass geographical location, area, terrain, and climate, which are fundamental elements in forming the state’s political geography and directly influencing its foreign policy dynamics. This influence manifests both in the capacity of the state to implement foreign policy and in defining its international standing. Additionally, indirect effects arise from determining the quality and scope of options available to the state when directing and shaping its foreign policy. Geographical location, for instance, specifies the strategic importance of a state, allowing it to play a regional or even international role, and contributing to building the state’s power.

Turkey’s geographical position, for example, renders it significantly important and enables it to assume a crucial regional role, having its foothold amid various regional circles such as the Middle East, the Caucasus, the European Union, and Central Asia. Conversely, landlocked states may lack the ability to assume a proactive role in their foreign policy due to their geographical isolation.

Geographical location carries great strategic significance; the geographical factor directly or indirectly impacts a state’s foreign policy, notably determining its capabilities in policy implementation. It should be noted that a strategic geographical position alone is insufficient to ensure an active foreign policy role without the presence of other determinants.

2. Natural Resources: A state with important natural resources such as energy sources (oil, gas), minerals (iron, copper, gold), and food supplies (wheat, corn) contributes to its economic independence and allows for an active regional and international role, enhancing its influence on the foreign policies of other states.

A prime example is Germany, an economic powerhouse that has effectively influenced the internal and external policies of European Union member states. Germany has managed to adopt positions contradictory to larger peer powers like the United States, notably opposing the American war in Iraq in 2003, achieved largely through optimal exploitation of its natural resources.

3. Human Determinants: The human element significantly influences foreign policy determination as it is crucial for developing a military capability geared to achieve foreign policy objectives during both peacetime and war. It also plays an essential role in providing human resources, whether domestically or by sending its workforce abroad, as seen in China’s case. However, this is not a fixed measure for state power, as countries with large populations like India and Indonesia may not possess the military strength relative to technological advancements. For example, Israel’s military represents about 10% of its population, significantly smaller than India’s, but Israel maintains one of the world’s highest military mobilization rates. Its military ranks among the most technologically advanced globally.

Conversely, demographic explosions can burden a state and hinder economic development, particularly when the population growth rate grossly outpaces economic growth, leading to increased reliance on external debt and creating international ties that may impact foreign policy.

4. Personal Determinants: Personal characteristics of decision-makers represent one of the most influential factors in defining states’ foreign policies since the actions of decision-makers often reflect upon foreign policy itself. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on their personalities, as leadership factors can significantly affect the foreign decision-making process, especially in developing countries where the president often plays a decisive role in policy formation. As the actions taken by the state stem from individuals or groups, personal attributes substantially influence foreign policy direction. By personal traits, we refer to a set of characteristics associated with cognitive and behavioral makeup.

Researchers have sought to identify and classify personal traits. Notably, influential personality trait models related to guiding states’ foreign behaviors include Adorno’s model of authoritarian personality, Rokitsch’s models of open versus closed-mindedness, and Maslow’s concept of self-actualization.

Adorno and his colleagues identified authoritarian personality traits as prevalent in extreme right-wingers, later noting that these qualities also exist among extreme leftists and socialist supporters. Key features associated with authoritarian personalities include the tendency to dominate subordinates, compliance to authority, sensitivity to power relations, a preference for perceived orderly worldviews, over-reliance on stereotypes in representing events and individuals, and adherence to traditional values. Authoritarians are often characterized by nationalistic fervor and a propensity toward war and aggression. Notable examples of such authoritarian personalities include Hitler and Mussolini prior to World War II, as well as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, who exhibited racist tendencies against Arab nationalism, along with former U.S. President George W. Bush, whose policies were characterized by militarism.

Closely related is the closed-minded personality model distinguished by Rokitsch, attributing a significant degree of anxiety to tightly held beliefs, an emphasis on the source of new information rather than its content, and an inability to assimilate conflicting information within entrenched ideologies, reflecting negatively on the selection of optimal options among various alternatives. Those with closed-minded personalities tend to perceive conspiracies, a tendency particularly evident among many Third World leaders, especially in Arab nations, who quickly assign blame to external forces for their internal instability.

Conversely, Maslow’s self-actualization personality trait posits that it positively impacts foreign policy. Certain prerequisites must be present in a decision-maker’s character to achieve this trait, which includes meeting physiological needs, internal security, emotional needs, and self-esteem. Fulfillment of these needs engenders confidence in the individual. Prominent examples illustrating this trait are Turkey’s President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, both embodying self-confidence and self-respect, engendering high domestic and international support with a proactive foreign policy.

5. Societal Determinants: Societal determinants encompass several factors, with the most significant being:

A. National Character Traits: Referring to the common qualities shared by the populace, distinguishing them from others. These traits are significantly shaped through socialization processes in families and schools. The elements constitutive of national characteristics influence foreign policy direction, as decision-makers themselves embody those values and traits, affected by their environment, which thereafter influences their foreign policy choices.

The characteristics of the national identity define external behaviors, as common national traits guide foreign policy conduct. A prime example includes Arab nationalist leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose policies reflected his commitment to Arab nationalism and support for liberation movements. This insight also explains why Turkish politicians sought to engage Turkish republics post-Soviet Union collapse.

B. Public Opinion: This refers to the collective stance of the populace on a particular issue or position. Gabriel Almond used the term “mood of foreign policy” to express the general inclinations or attitudes exhibited by large segments of the population toward a specific foreign policy at a certain time. In Western societies, public opinion plays a significant role in guiding foreign policy, while in authoritarian regimes, public sentiment exerts limited influence over foreign policy behaviors due to unilateral authority by the governing individual or group and the absence of collective freedoms such as expression and protests.

Realist perspectives suggest public opinion exhibits characteristics of indifference, simplification, extreme fluctuation, and insufficient knowledge in foreign policy realms. Decision-makers tend to influence public opinion more than the reverse, with the public circling their support around decision-makers (e.g., the president) especially during crises.

The effect of public opinion on foreign policy orientation intertwines with the factors influencing its direction. The most significant influences include media channels, political parties as interest groups, and media outlets themselves. The impact of public opinion on foreign policy orientation results from the mobilization efforts exerted by these channels, which may serve to legitimize both the internal and external positions of ruling political systems.

C. Civil Society: Referring to the system encompassing political parties, interest groups, unions, associations, and representation bodies, political parties constitute fundamental determinants of foreign policy. In authoritarian regimes, a singular party largely reflects government policy, both internally and externally, acting as its official voice. However, in democratic systems, the influence of political parties on state foreign policy is often apparent and can amplify as their representation in parliament grows.

The role of parties in foreign policy in multiparty systems tends to be limited due to shifts in coalitions. The prime minister typically adopts his party’s thoughts and positions in shaping the overarching guiding trends of the nation’s foreign policy. A prime example of this is the secular parties in Turkey directing their foreign policy toward the West while harboring animosity toward Arabs, conversely while Islamic-inclined parties tended toward equitable and collaborative policies with Arab states.

6. Political Determinants: These primarily concern the nature of the state’s political system, which plays a significant role in foreign policy formulation. Democratic systems typically reflect peaceful foreign policies, characterized by pluralism and high levels of political participation, while authoritarian systems often manifest aggressive expansionist policies. Observations reveal that democratic governments also pursue power and compete for vital spheres of influence, justifying their resort to force and violence in the name of spreading democracy and protecting human rights. A salient example is the American-led invasion of Iraq.

Political stability plays a crucial role in shaping a state’s foreign policy; such stability allows the state to concentrate on crafting a foreign policy that achieves its objectives. This stability also fosters a favorable image externally, facilitating other states’ engagement, thereby contributing to the dynamism of its foreign policy. The case of Algeria during the 1990s exemplifies this, where insecurity rendered Algeria a pariah state, isolating it internationally for over a decade, with effects lingering to this day.

7. Military Determinants: The military factor signifies the main indicator of state power and an effective tool for pursuing foreign policy objectives. When a state boasts a substantial military arsenal and capable military leadership, complemented by advanced military technology allowing for access to diverse smart and destructive weaponry along with an effective military doctrine, it lends the state international weight and prestige while assisting in achieving foreign policy aims, whether through intimidation or warfare.

B. External Determinants: The international or regional framework represents one of the most significant determinants of states’ foreign policy. Patterns of power distribution within the international system characterized by sharp polarization make state isolationist policies challenging. If the international system is predicated on alliances and political-military blocs, this compels policymakers in smaller states to enter alliances to secure national security, regardless of their potential conflicts with their broader political aspirations or deviations from certain principles within their traditional foreign policies. Moreover, such alliances aid their superpower founders in implementing their foreign policies and compelling other states to accept them.

The international system includes essential dimensions:

1. Units: The number of international units in the international system significantly influences these units’ foreign policy formation. According to Deutsch and Singer, an increase in international units enhances the stability of the system, diffusing the degree of attention any international actor devotes to other actors. In contrast, Waltz asserts that a reduction in the number of actors fosters stability within the international system, as fewer players entail lower chances of conflict.

An increasing number of international units may lead to heightened stability in theinternational system due to the intermingling of interests among countries, resulting in significant complexity and preventing any state from severing its ties. This dynamic compels states to pursue less aggressive foreign policy alternatives, aiming to protect their interests that could suffer from adopting a belligerent stance. Hence, the increase in international units expands the base of mutual dependency, reducing the likelihood of major-scale conflicts.

However, the essential difference between Deutsch and Singer on one side and Waltz on the other is their lack of distinction between the overall increase of international units and the increment of effective active players in the international system. While the increase in units leads to stability in the system, increasing the number of directly influential states can disrupt stability, particularly when their interests conflict.

International Institutions: International organizations notably influence states’ foreign policy dynamics through their structured roles, which govern external relations among states, while international legal frameworks affect states’ policies by imposing limitations on their external conduct. The role of international institutions extends beyond fostering cooperation among states, aiming also at resolving conflicts per international law.

Nevertheless, international entities and organizations often display double standards, as powerful nations exploit them to achieve their interests, even when that contradicts the foundational principles of these institutions.

International Political Processes: Referring to the dynamic aspects of the international system arising from the various interactions of international units per the principles of action and reaction—reciprocity—which yield cooperative or conflictive characteristics in state relations, depending on national interests, the position taken post the actions and reactions, and the state’s alignment within the existing balance of power framework, which forms the core of the modern international system.

These political processes reflect the influence of external environments on states’ foreign policies. Despite being a reflection of domestic policy, foreign policy cannot exist in isolation from the external environment outside of regional and international balances, given the complexity and intertwining of interests within the international system.

International Structure: By the international structure, we refer to the arrangement of international units according to their strength and role regionally and globally. The susceptibility of international units to the international structure varies, as the more multipolar the structure, the more opportunities exist for units to influence it by aligning with one of its poles, compelling the power poles to engage in ongoing competition to attract more states.

Conclusion

Despite the numerous definitions of foreign policy, it fundamentally revolves around state behaviors and external activities aimed at fulfilling defined objectives—be they short or long-term. Foreign policy is marked by formal and unitary characteristics that delineate its architects, while also possessing an external character that defines its target entities, which consistently reside beyond the state’s borders, varying according to the diverse actors in international relations.

Moreover, states’ foreign policies are influenced by various trends based on the nature of the established objectives in their foreign policy agendas and their physical and moral positions. A state may gravitate towards a regional or international orientation based on its geographical and vital aspects, seeking regional or global roles that facilitate the realization of strategic goals. It may also aim to affirm or alter the current state of international relations in alignment with its strategies and national interests. States may embark on interventionist or non-interventionist paths to change the political composition of other states when it perceives that the ruling elites ought to be altered for its national interest, employing various means in these endeavors.

Nonetheless, trends in foreign policy are governed by multiple determinants, divided into internal and external categories. Internal determinants relate to the state’s internal environment, ranging from geography and its pivotal role in defining a state’s importance, to the diversification of natural resources and their effective utilization, culminating in economic power that fosters confidence and autonomy, thereby reducing vulnerabilities in negotiations. Personal, societal, and political determinants critically shape foreign policy according to ideological, cultural, and historical frameworks. Meanwhile, external determinants fundamentally center around the international system, where the increased number of international units fosters interconnectedness and cooperation among states, while the interplay between the international structure and the engagements facilitated by international organizations—all contribute to shaping the foreign policies of states.

Reference

“A Theory of Foreign Policy” by Glenn Palmer and T. Clifton Morgan. ​Princeton University Press

“Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making” by Alex Mintz and Karl DeRouen Jr. ​Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

“Foreign Policy and Interdependence in Gaullist France” by Edward Morse. ​Princeton University Press

“The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations” by John Baylis, Patricia Owens, and Steve Smith.​

“Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” by Graham T. Allison and Philip Zelikow.​

“American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century” by Bruce W. Jentleson.​

“The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by John J. Mearsheimer.​

“Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger.​

“The Post-Cold War World: Turbulence and Change in World Politics Since 1989” by Michael Cox.​

“The Future of Power” by Joseph S. Nye Jr.​

“World Order” by Henry Kissinger.​

“The Oxford Handbook of Foreign Policy Analysis” edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne.​

“Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases” edited by Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne.​

“The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist’s Guide to Success in Business and Life” by Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff.​

“Perception and Misperception in International Politics” by Robert Jervis.​

“The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters” by Matthew Kroenig.​

“Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis” by Kenneth N. Waltz.​

“The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics” by Hedley Bull.​

“Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics” by Joseph S. Nye Jr.​

“The Origins of Alliances” by Stephen M. Walt.​

“Neoclassical Realist Theory of International Politics” by Norrin M. Ripsman, Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, and Steven E. Lobell.​

“The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning” by Allan R. Millett.​

“The War for Korea, 1950-1951: They Came from the North” by Allan R. Millett.​

“The Cold War: A New History” by John Lewis Gaddis.​

“Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War” by John Lewis Gaddis.​

“The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century CE to the Third” by Edward N. Luttwak.​

“The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire” by Edward N. Luttwak.​

“The Tragedy of U.S. Foreign Policy: How America’s Civil Religion Betrayed the National Interest” by Walter A. McDougall.​

“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000” by Paul Kennedy.​

“The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations” by E.H. Carr.​

“The Prince” by Niccolò Machiavelli.​

“On War” by Carl von Clausewitz.​

“Arms and Influence” by Thomas C. Schelling.​

“The Strategy of Conflict” by Thomas C. Schelling.​

“The Art of War” by Sun Tzu.