The Importance of the Internal Environment in the Analysis of Foreign Policy

In this research, we will attempt to highlight the most significant variables of the internal environment that affect the external behavior of states, by presenting these variables according to the theoretical models discussed in this regard. Scholars have attempted to showcase the relative weight of these variables and their significant impact on external behavior, often exceeding the influence of systemic variables. This has led some to describe foreign policy as a direct extension of domestic political realities. We will then move to another level to present the importance and status of these variables concerning traditional foreign policy theories as well as new propositions.

1. The General Framework of Foreign Policy Analysis Theory:

Discussing a theory for studying foreign policy reflects the advancement of foreign policy as a cognitive field with its specific subject matter, methodologies, and governing laws. The development of studying this phenomenon has coincided with the evolution of studying the whole, which represents international relations. Foreign policy has undergone significant developments and transformations on various cognitive and methodological levels.

Foreign policy theories have constantly sought to explain and interpret changes in a state’s behavior towards another state, attempting to provide comprehensive and acceptable theoretical frameworks for understanding state behavior. However, theorists have not agreed on a unified approach to identify specific and explanatory variables for state behavior. Most theoretical attempts have emerged within frameworks that create a work context based on hypotheses, suitable for explaining the nature and limits of foreign policy work. Moreover, efforts to activate dialogues around foreign policy and theoretically adapt them to the realities of international conditions occur within the framework of seeking to interpret the results of the interplay between internal and external factors integrated into states’ external behavior.

2. The Concept of Foreign Policy:

Attempting to define foreign policy in a precise manner presents some challenges, particularly those related to the complex nature of foreign policy, as it belongs to different psychological, national, and international environments, in addition to epistemological and methodological considerations. It is best described as a problematic issue in defining foreign policy.

Scholars identify two problems that hinder the ability to provide an accurate and comprehensive definition of foreign policy:

First: Foreign policy is not recognized as an abstract subject; rather, it is defined through a set of components and elements that all contribute to its formation and directly influence it. Therefore, some scholars tend to equate foreign policy with some parts of that policy, such as objectives and behaviors, as seen in the context of Pol Sipirit’s definition, which characterizes foreign policy as: “The set of objectives and commitments through which the state seeks to interact with foreign states via constitutionally defined authorities…”

Second: The differences among schools of thought and thinkers belonging to these schools, depending on each perspective’s vision of foreign policy. Additionally, the state’s status at the international level and its influential power directly affect its agenda of interests and thus its definition of external behavior.

Despite these obstacles, there have been serious attempts by researchers to establish conceptual boundaries for foreign policy, some of which can be cited:

• To address this issue, Sharles Hermann attempted to define foreign policy as: “The official behaviors followed by official decision-makers in the government or those representing them, aiming to influence the behavior of other international units.”
• Rosenau James presented a more comprehensive definition of foreign policy by stating: “The set of authoritative actions taken or committed to by governments either to maintain desirable aspects of the international environment or to change undesirable aspects.”
• Or as “a method of action followed by official representatives of the national community consciously to establish or change a certain position in the international system, in a manner consistent with predefined objectives.”

Thus, it appears that foreign policy comprises a collection of behaviors of decision-makers in the external environment.

In general, far from the problematic of establishing a stable and unified concept, foreign policy reflects a set of objectives intended to be achieved through available means and specific channels that can influence the attainment of those objectives. Thus, foreign policy is a collective expression of a set of directions, objectives, plans, and commitments propelled by means for their funding and conversion into external behavior.

3. The First Section – Influential Variables of the Internal Environment on Foreign Policy:

Just as was the case during the Cold War period, researchers continued to explore the impact of national policy on a state’s external behavior. Some researchers, such as Snyder, Jeffrey Frieden, and Helen Milner, examined how interest groups influence state choices, thereby leading to unexpected external behaviors. George Downs and David Rock illustrated the role played by national institutions in helping to deal with the ambiguity surrounding international affairs. Some psychology researchers employed the judgement theory alongside other analytical tools to explain why decision-makers fail to act rationally.

3-1. The Concept of the Domestic Environment:

The domestic environment constitutes the contextual background against which policy is drawn. Joseph Frankel defines the environment, whether internal or external, in his book “The Making of Foreign Policy” as: “the environment, (or, interchangeably, setting), is used as a description of all surrounding factors.”

The domestic environment is: “Any internal matter that may impact foreign policy.” Generally, the domestic environment exists within the framework of the community for which decision-makers make decisions and includes internal policies (public opinion, geographical location, nature of the political system, key societal values, parties, pressure groups, etc.). National experience in dealing with international political issues can also be added.

Snyder defines the environment, or domestic environment, as encompassing what is known as internal policies, public opinion, geographical location of states, as well as general culture and the main characteristics that define the population and the manner in which society is organized and performs its functions.

3-2. Components of the Internal Environment:

The models attempting to delineate the variables of the internal environment that influence foreign policy vary. However, it seems that some models presented—especially within the framework of comparative foreign policy studies—provide these variables in a detailed manner. In this context, the “Macfawn” and “Shapiro” model is noteworthy. Patrick Macfawn and Howard Shapiro, in their model, present a comprehensive framework for comparative analysis of foreign policy that integrates various influencing categories. This model identifies twelve categories for these internal variables, nine of which are internal factors, reflecting the considerable importance and relative weight of these variables in explaining external behavior.

We will try to address these categories related to internal variables within the framework of the study, which can be categorized as follows:

• Individual variables.
• Elite variables.
• Political variables.
• Societal variables.
• Cultural variables.
• Economic variables.
• Linkage variables.

These variables exert their influence on external behavior not merely due to their objective existence within society, but their effect is linked to variables related to the structure of the political system:

• Government variables.
• Institutional variables.

Based on this, we will explore these variables through:

• Presenting the components of the internal environment.
• The relationship between the shape of the political system and foreign policy.

This will allow us to understand the weight of internal variables and which ones are prominent or receding according to the political system’s type, which determines the nature of the variables influencing external behavior.

1- Individual Variables:

There was a prevailing belief according to the realist perspective that politicians are characterized by rationality since they think from the standpoint of interests defined by the concept of power. Accepting that premise means that researching the motivations of the individual or group is considered a waste of time. The rationality hypothesis has faced numerous criticisms, and many studies during the 1970s began to go beyond the state and focus on aspects related to individual psychology and groups as influential factors in foreign policy behaviors.

According to Shapiro and Macfawn, individual or personal variables encompass the personal traits of individuals who shape foreign policy. They also define it as “a collection of self-motivated drives and personal characteristics of the political leader or leaders who shape foreign policy,” which includes characteristics such as beliefs, values, experiences, traits, social composition, and perceptions.

Richard Snyder and other researchers have emphasized that regardless of the external or internal determinants of foreign policy, their significance is determined by the perceptions of official policymakers. Thus, the actions emanating from the state are, in fact, carried out by individuals, and therefore understanding and comprehending these actions necessitates examining the decision-making environment through the perceptions of decision-makers of their external or internal surroundings rather than from an objective or neutral observer’s perspective.

Several scholars’ positions consider the role of policymakers as central to the making of that policy, so Christopher Hill argues that even in open societies, the strong personality of the head of state and their personal views can explain a significant portion of the state’s international behavior. They can be summarized as follows:

• The more a decision-maker cares about foreign policy issues, the greater the impact of personal factors in the foreign policy-making process (here, we indicate the effect of this factor on Russian foreign policy in several cases involving “Putin,” who shows clear interest in what occurs abroad, which we will explain in the second chapter).
• The more the decision-maker’s authority strengthens regarding decision-making, the more the impact of personal variables increases in the foreign policy-making process (this applies to President “Putin’s” standing and the wide-ranging powers he possesses, allowing him to impose his personal inclinations on external decisions).
• The higher the decision-making structure, the greater the impact of personal variables in the foreign policy-making process.
• The more non-routine decision-making circumstances arise, the more the impact of personal variables grows in the foreign policy-making process, such as during crises.
• The more ambiguity and unpredictability characterize the decisions made, the greater the impact of personal variables on the foreign policy-making process, as these mentioned decisions tend to face weak political opposition to the choice embraced by the political leader due to the ambiguity or unpredictability of the situation. If individuals show interest in the issue, information conflicts will decrease their chances of convincing decision-makers to retract from the option they are inclined to take.

*Note: The impact of personal variables on foreign policy-making varies based on the circumstances under which the policy is made.

2- Elite Variables:

The political elite refers to a group of individuals who possess sources and tools of power in society and includes leaders of the executive and legislative branches, political parties, and the military institution.

It is also described as “a descriptive term for individuals and groups at a certain hierarchical summit.” The general characteristics of the elite shaping foreign policy include age averages, levels of education, experience, specialization, and the ratio of civilians to military personnel.

The actual foreign policy elite divides between official holders of positions and organized interests (what Almond refers to as the “political elite”). Official holders occupy positions of authority within the system and are the individuals officially involved in acting on behalf of the state, surrounded by a bureaucracy from agencies centered around ministries of foreign affairs, but also includes a number of other state ministries.

The impact of the political elite depends on three factors:

• The shape of the political system.
• The level of homogeneity of the political elite.
• Its agreement on the fundamental outlines of foreign policy.

3- Political Variables:

Political variables reflect aspects of general political effectiveness, concerning the nature of informal political actors and the extent of their influence over the state’s political path. This includes the party system in the state, the roles played by parties and pressure groups, public opinion, and the media, as well as the level of political development within the country and the nature and patterns of internal political conflicts. In this context, we can pinpoint the most significant actors influencing external behavior as follows:

A- Political Parties:

Some scholars of foreign policy consider political parties with representatives in power to have a significant influence on the directions and nature of foreign policy. The more a party influences parliament or executive power, the greater its impact on foreign policy, especially within democratic systems. The nature of party organization—whether a single party, a bipartisan system, or multi-party system—determines the conditions of influence these parties exert over foreign decision-making.

Parties differ concerning their structures and functions from one system to another. A party plays a crucial role in authoritarian systems, usually adopting a one-party structure, as seen in the People’s Republic of China or the former Soviet Union, where foreign policy reflects the ideology of the ruling one-party regime. Similarly, in bipartisan systems, foreign behavior reflects the orientation of one of the two parties dominating decision-making, as seen in U.S. foreign policy manifesting itself as isolationist and domestic-oriented when Democrats are in power, while it is characterized as offensive and aggressive when Republicans assume power.

In multi-party systems, the influence of parties is often limited, especially when coalitions change rapidly. Governments and parties struggle to exercise authority, which consequently increases the influence of bureaucracies.

Thus, the extent of a party’s influence on foreign policy is linked to its proximity to decision-making centers.

B- Interest Groups:

Interest groups are defined as groups of individuals who come together to achieve a common interest, and may take the form of unorganized interest groups, such as ethnic minorities, whose members share common religious, linguistic, or ethnic interests. These groups may also take the shape of “institutional interest groups,” such as the military, based on their belonging to an official organization within society and the government under a unified professional framework and common interest. The third form these interest groups could take is “organized interest groups,” which are specifically organized to defend their members, characterized by an organizational entity and systems for internal and external communication. Among the most prominent forms are labor unions, business associations, professional bodies for engineers, doctors, and lawyers, etc.

Interest groups attempt to influence foreign policy decisions in line with their own nature and interests. Although interest groups may sometimes act like political parties by engaging in elections through their candidates, their activities in the field of foreign policy often limit themselves to attempts to influence both the legislative and executive branches. They can affect foreign policy through three channels:

1. Direct participation in the foreign policy-making process: By participating in those institutions making policy. A prominent example of this is the representation of military personnel in the political bureau of the Soviet Communist Party.
2. Directing resources to exert indirect influence on foreign policy: Some interest groups possess part of the economic and military resources in society, and through utilizing these resources, they can influence the trajectory of foreign policy. A notable example of this is the influence of the American Jewish Community on foreign policy in the Middle East.
3. Interest groups serving as intermediaries: between political authorities and citizens. Mediation is achieved by expressing specific interests of groups of citizens to foreign policy makers, such as organizing demonstrations by students in front of the White House to protest against the Vietnam War.

However, the influence of interest groups is often characterized by being extremely limited concerning foreign policy, due to their inability to assume upper positions within decision-making centers that compel them to convince power-holders of their positions’ validity, which is particularly challenging regarding high-level policies related to security and military issues. Their influence is also weakened when numerous groups’ interests collide, ultimately resulting in an overall paralysis of their foreign decision-making impacts.

C- Public Opinion:

The role of public opinion is limited but always exists to varying degrees depending on the nature of the state, thus serving as a regulatory factor for foreign policy-making and varying in impact from one issue to another.

Studies in this context suggest that public opinion often lacks the necessary information required to make informed external decisions, causing it to lose its influence and credibility on sensitive foreign issues. This opens space for decision-makers to wield substantial influence owing to their access to ample information and their capability to persuade public opinion of their views through directed communication methods, even within the most open states like the United States. An example of this is its ability to convince public opinion of the necessity of preemptive wars, despite substantial internal opposition (the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq).

4- Societal Variables:

This encompasses some aspects of the social structure, such as population size, population growth rate, degree of social development, and patterns of social stratification.

Advocates of this view argue that decision-makers are products of their societies, with the environment to which these individuals belong significantly influencing them. Societal variables represent a collection of prevailing values, ideas, discourses, and social cultures that serve as value-based criteria for evaluating the acceptability or otherwise of decisions according to the social legitimacy derived from these components. This legitimacy is not just temporary, sporadic stances, but rather exhibits relative stability, making them a source of legitimacy or lack thereof for the external behaviors of states.

Thus, societal orientations play a significant role in directing the course of external behavior and are defined as “a set of political ideas embraced by most community members, defining their view of the political world.” Among the most important societal variables impacting foreign policy options, we can summarize the following:

A- National Character: Scholars assume that a general pattern of character exists within each state, especially those that enjoy cohesion and stability, as most citizens share certain traits that distinguish them from other communities. Over time, a specific national character forms through socialization, which can vary in its impact on the behavior of external decision-makers and the state’s approach toward cooperation or conflict with other states.

B- Nationalism: States that have succeeded in forming a national character are characterized by having a mature nationalism. The term nationalism is used in two interrelated senses: the first refers to an “ideology,” while the second denotes a “feeling.” In its first use, nationalism seeks to define a behavioral entity, “the nation,” pursuing certain political and cultural objectives on its behalf, such as national self-determination. This can be empirically defined in various ways: irredentism, independence, separation— all objectives pursued under this title. In its second meaning, nationalism denotes a sense of loyalty shared by the populace toward the nation. This solidarity manifests itself through factors like language, religion, shared historical experiences, and geographical proximity.

Nationalism has served as a source for state external behavior, exemplified by the October War of 1973 between Arab states and Israel, where nationalism significantly shaped the behavior of the conflicting states, especially on the Arab side.

Leaders often utilize nationalism to achieve internal unity and coherence in order to reach foreign policy objectives, thus securing national interests by asserting national independence from other entities or attempting to restore their state’s status and existence as a primary actor in politics.

C- Societal Characteristics: Numerous quantitative studies have shown substantial interest in measuring the relationship between a state’s societal characteristics and its foreign policy. When one connects the societal characteristics of one state with those of another in a bilateral manner, it typically yields better results in explaining foreign policy. Research has found that cultural and social similarities have significantly contributed to peace among communities sharing common characteristics, while another study revealed a relationship between the social homogeneity of two states and mutual communication between them. In other words, countries with similar characteristics are more likely to demonstrate cooperative integration behavior.

5- Cultural Variables: Macfawn and Shapiro distinguished between cultural and social variables in their models, while many scholars have not separated them, given that cultural variables come within the context of state societies due to their significant overlap.

These cultural variables include according to Macfawn and Shapiro, the cultural systems in national communities such as the degree of cultural pluralism, patterns of defining and assimilating national identity, various communication systems and their patterns, the nature of belief(s) in society, and their capacity to serve as a tool for popular mobilization.

The distribution of cultural values and attitudes within society affects foreign policy formulation through the identity and objectives of its actors (the cultural and civilizational characteristics of peoples and the quality of ideological and doctrinal affiliations).

These cultural values have constituted the essence of human behaviors throughout the history of international politics because of their connection to the social heritage of individuals, alongside their involvement in the structure of individual and social systems. This has led to affecting their normative dimensions and the behaviors of decision-makers, as well as the ruling elites in shaping the directions of states in foreign policy.

Cultural variables offer a significant focus for understanding the context of international relations, with the advancement of political interactions leading to the emergence of cultural dimensions as key factors in shaping international behaviors.

6- Economic Variables: These encompass economic infrastructure, balance of payments, trade balance, the level of economic development of the state, and the nature and magnitude of its foreign trade.

These variables impact foreign policy decisions, as the more advanced a state is economically, the greater its degree of interaction within the international system with other units, leading to higher opportunities for collaboration rather than engagement in conflictual behaviors. This aligns with proponents of new liberalism through the democratic peace approach, showing that homogeneous capitalist economic systems tend to engage in cooperative integrationist behaviors.

In general, economic factors play a central role in shaping foreign policy choices, as implementing most policies necessitates the availability of economic resources. Thus, a state’s internal stability and high levels of economic development grant it greater capacity for negotiation and bargaining in its foreign policy, particularly if it has the ability to produce and possess security goods in its relationships with other states (in the context of Russian-European relations, energy is a sensitive focal point in this relationship).

7- Linkage Variables: Here, linkage refers to the previous external behavior of the state and its prior relationships. Decision-makers’ perception of a specific country, based on prior judgments, influences the nature of their subsequent behavior towards it. The existence of agreements between the two states contributes to reducing or negating conflictual behaviors between them. Additionally, the presence of a certain level of prior cooperation between the two states subsequently impacts their foreign policies towards each other.

The overview of these internal variables reveals their depth and breadth of influence on the external behavior of states. However, studies on comparative foreign policy affirm that the relative weight of these variables varies from one state to another, as sometimes certain variables ascend while others descend in prominence. The arrangement of influencing elements is based on their weight in different cases, which depends on the nature of the political system and the type of relationship between ruling institutions within each state, determining which variables gain increasing influence and which recede or completely disappear.

Thus, foreign policy, in addition to being influenced by the aforementioned variables, must also be crafted within a specific political framework that likewise impacts it. National doctrines, social and economic conditions, and individual characteristics of decision-makers influence the formulation of foreign policy objectives. In order to achieve those priorities identified within this policy framework, decisions must be built upon a selective process among certain options, where the decision-making methodology and the quality of participants in making those decisions affect the nature of these choices.

Hence, we will examine the impact of the nature and shape of the political system on the nature of foreign policy decisions through two elements:

• Government variables: addressing the shape of the political system.
• Institutional variables: examining the relationship between the institutions authorized to formulate foreign policy decisions.

8- Government Variables: (The Shape of the Political System)

These variables relate to the impact of the political system’s shape on the nature of external decisions. Therefore, these variables encompass the structural attributes of the political system, such as the form of governance (democratic/authoritarian) and the level of military capabilities.

Two general assumptions about democracies have become common sense in traditional international relations wisdom:

First: Democracies are more peace-loving than other types of political systems, and they rarely engage in or do not attack one another—according to Kant’s theory (Kant) or the “democratic peace” theory.

Second: Democracies exhibit weaknesses in formulating and executing foreign policy—de Tocqueville’s theory.

New liberalism sought to analyze the relationship between the shape of systems and foreign policy through the “democratic peace” perspective, distinguishing between open democratic systems and closed authoritarian systems. The shape of the system determines which of the previously mentioned variables will influence foreign decision-making.

Democratic systems, according to this assertion, enjoy certain advantages in foreign policy arenas, as these systems provide political leaders with resources and ensure external policies align with national interests, as outlined below:

• Political leaders who possess political skills are elected, opening the door for foreign decision-making to align with democratic principles and constructive debates among diverse political forces and community factions, such as political parties, interest groups, and public opinion, unlike authoritarian systems where political leaders or a political minority (ruling elite) monopolize decision-making and impose it in the form of commands.
• The openness of the democratic political system, by eliminating secrecy, enables genuine discussions on foreign policy issues, leading to the availability of information and the examination of various alternatives.
• Political controls emerging from the social environment and political culture limit the freedom of political leaders, obligating them to make decisions serving the internal public good. This is absent in authoritarian systems, which often compel their citizens to accept irrational decisions regarding engaging in wars and external conflicts that lack internal legitimacy, adversely affecting the social and economic situations of the state.

This proposition implies that democratic systems allow for the emergence of influences from the internal environment variables due to openness and returning to the popular will in decision-making, where various community factions—including parties, interest groups, and public opinion—express their views regarding any specific foreign decision.

However, this proposition has faced significant critiques, particularly concerning critics who assert that democracies only consult their populations on matters related to domestic politics, while decisions on sensitive security or political issues are made in a closed manner.

Despite these criticisms, democratic systems differ from closed authoritarian systems, where the impact and relative weight of variables associated with an individual political leader’s motivations and the ruling elite—a minority from society—are significantly pronounced, explaining decisions that are disconnected from their internal environment and failing to reflect the level of internal acceptance. Decisions are taken in isolation from the political system’s internal environment, justifying that these segments remain ignorant of national interest and sensitive foreign policy issues and priorities.

As for the second point regarding the ineffectiveness of democratic systems in formulating and implementing foreign policy, analysts contend that authoritarian systems possess numerous advantages enabling them to make decisions on the external level more effectively compared to their democratic counterparts. According to de Tocqueville’s theory, democratic systems tend to be slow in responding to foreign issues, especially during crises, and when responses do occur, they may be extreme. The cause of this situation, according to de Tocqueville, stems from the “interference” of domestic politics in shaping foreign policy and the constant need to respond to public opinion. Conversely, fascist systems enjoy the advantage that a closed political environment facilitates rapid and stable decision-making, unencumbered by the need to refer to a critical audience. Therefore, concentrating power and denying the public scrutiny allows centralized political systems significant advantages in foreign affairs.

They can make swift decisions and are highly adaptable. The lack of adherence to the views of the public and various social or political factions occurs not only during situations requiring a quick response but also impacts foreign policy issues over the medium or long term— where a state’s foreign behavior towards other states or issues manifests stability, and changing internal pressures do not alter its foreign policy orientations. The trends of rapprochement, cooperation, or distancing and conflict regarding Russia’s relations with European Union states are not dictated by the components of the Russian internal environment across various societal, political, and economic categories, as much as they are determined by the desires of the political leader or the political elite governing power. This will be detailed at a later point in the study. Similarly, China’s openness to the economic world can be attributed to the ruling authority’s desire, rather than internal pressures from societal groups.

9- Institutional Variables:

In addition to the variables related to the shape of the political system, the composition of institutional variables plays an essential role in determining who makes and directs decisions. These variables encompass the number and type of administrations, departments, and authorities involved in the decision-making process, the level of bureaucratic development of these departments and authorities, and the means available to them to influence decision-making.

Thus, we will discuss at this level the impact of these central bureaucratic circles on the president and the legislative and executive branches, as well as other bureaucratic groups in the decision-making process, depending on the nature of the political system, whether presidential or parliamentary, to highlight the ranking of the impacts of variables that emerge or recede according to the legal nature of the political system.

A- The President’s Role as an Institution in Creating Foreign Policy:

The head of state is considered the supreme representative of the state in its external relations, embodying its sovereignty and expressing the state’s will. Consequently, international customs and laws assign him special privileges and immunities, and the state constitution outlines and governs the competencies and powers of the head of state concerning foreign policy. However, some constitutional systems grant the head of state wide authorities.

1- In presidential systems:

In presidential systems, the head of state almost monopolizes directing foreign relations. A prominent example is the United States, where the president guides and manages foreign policy and dictates its main directions, albeit with constitutional/legal/political/judicial mechanisms limiting any excessive or deficient actions that could suggest a breach of law or constitution. The political system in Russia, which is the focus of this study, provides the Russian president with many extensive powers in relation to other institutions domestically, especially concerning foreign policy decisions. The magnitude of this influence of the Russian president, particularly during “Putin’s” tenure, will be highlighted at a later stage of the study.

The presidency and its role are influenced by several internal factors (representing effects from bureaucratic institutions influencing U.S. foreign policy decision-making formed from interests and governmental institutions).

2- In parliamentary systems:

In parliamentary systems, the head of state possesses limited, often symbolic, (ceremonial or protocol) powers, relating to matters that do not notably affect the foreign policy of their country. The head of government (Spain), the Prime Minister (Italy), or the Chancellor (Germany and Austria) assume the actual role in managing this policy.

The head of state’s powers in this type of system are confined to appointing the state’s ambassadors to foreign countries and approving foreign ambassadors to the state. They receive their credentials, ratify treaties (in cases specified by the constitution), and host other heads of state during official visits; however, they cannot intervene in political negotiations with other countries or compel their state to adopt personal political stances, as these powers belong to the head of government who is the chief of the executive authority.

3- In mixed or semi-presidential systems:

In this type of system, which adopts many characteristics of parliamentary systems, the head of state enjoys wide-ranging powers in foreign policy, while the head of government (Prime Minister) has room for maneuver under the direct oversight of the latter (as seen in Morocco, Lebanon, Turkey…).

B- The Impact of the Executive and Legislative Branches on Foreign Policy Decisions:

Whether the government is democratic or authoritarian, the executive authority, which encompasses the key decision-makers (the president, the prime minister, or the foreign minister), plays a central role in making foreign policy decisions, particularly under presidential systems—as noted in the previous section—and also specifically under authoritarian systems. The strength of the legislative authority in each state depends on the powers granted to it by the constitution. However, there are common fundamentals characterizing legislative authorities in all states, as their powers in foreign affairs are generally lesser than their powers in domestic matters due to the secrecy generally associated with foreign affairs. Legislative authorities do not initiate foreign policy decisions, but rather their role is limited to approving or opposing the foreign policy proposed by the government, generally remaining very limited in presidential and authoritarian systems.

Conversely, the executive authority has gained more flexibility in formulating and implementing foreign policy due to several factors, the most significant being the growing importance of international challenges and the perennial crises climate, demanding a central foreign policy process. Additionally, this body possesses ample information through excellent communication channels as political and economic representatives, as well as military personnel, provide reports directly to their superiors in the executive authority, while the legislative authority’s capacity to obtain independent information is limited due to its small size and scant resources.

Scholars debate whether parliamentary or presidential systems are more beneficial for creating coherent and interconnected foreign policies. Some scholars assert that the presidential system has a greater capacity for formulating such policies due to the regularity of elections and the continuity of policy. In Russian political systems, researchers argue that the consistency of Russian foreign policy according to one pattern results from the president’s ability to exploit the long duration of their presidency to impose their foreign inclinations. The head of the executive authority also secures a tenure of at least four years, and does not fear the legislative authority, as they cannot withdraw trust from him.

However, various factors also lead to policy continuity within parliamentary systems, such as the existence of highly disciplined political parties. Given that the Prime Minister enjoys a parliamentary majority, they can rely on continuous support for executive policies and do not need to amend them, as they are guaranteed their acceptance by parliament.

C- The Military Institution:

Debate often arises about the importance of the military institution in influencing states’ external behavior, particularly if these states have the capacity to influence decision-making processes. This relationship is partly linked to analyses focusing on the role of “the military-industrial complex,” which emphasizes this institution’s involvement in directing and determining foreign policy according to an aggressive doctrine.

The military institution’s role in the foreign policy-making process depends on the form of governance, so it is essential to analyze the relationship between civilian and military authorities in different regimes— totalitarian or democratic. In this context, the hypothesis asserts a positive correlation between a state’s military capabilities and its aggressive external behavior. Studies have shown that major powers with military and diplomatic capabilities were more actively engaged in conflicts.

The military institution’s impact on decision-making centers heightens when it shares military backgrounds with the head of state, as their interests align, providing military leaders with increased influence on foreign policy decisions based on their positive relationship with the president, especially in non-democratic regimes. The military institution’s control amplifies in cases characterized by limited popular participation in the political process. The former Soviet Union exemplified a clear model linking Soviet foreign policy with the influence of military leaders within the state.

Conversely, the relationship between civilians and military leaders remains a continuous dialectic in democratic systems, where these systems continuously seek to ensure civilian control over military leaders, placing military commanders under the authority of civilian defense ministers to impose dominance of the civilian institution.

However, the military institution’s impact on external behavior depends on the relationship dynamics with other institutions, especially the presidency, as a state’s inclination towards cooperative actions does not solely hinge on the existence of a robust military institution, but rather on the assertion that national foreign interests are determined and realized by not allowing military intervention in external decision-making, particularly as cooperation and international integration increase.

Chapter Two: The Status and Importance of Internal Variables in Foreign Policy Theories:

The approaches aimed at explaining states’ behaviors remain confined to a singular perspective by focusing on one analytical level over another, including the internal and external variables within each level. Foreign policy theories diverge on how to conceptualize the actors and basic motivations. Moreover, they study states’ foreign policies from different angles.

While one group of researchers posits that understanding foreign policy can only be achieved by focusing exclusively on the internal characteristics and determinants of a state, another group argues for understanding foreign policy through structural external characteristics of the international system.

Thus, in this chapter, we will present theoretical discussions by endeavoring to answer the following pivotal question: what analytical level should be employed—is it the systemic structure of the international system, or the internal level focusing on states’ internal structures?

This aims to reach a conclusion about the value and status of internal environmental variables in understanding states’ foreign policies alongside international variables, consistent with the nature of the subject study.

To achieve this goal, we have attempted to measure the impact of internal variables on external behavior and define the approaches that study foreign policy concerning this impact. Thus, it is essential to emphasize the importance of these internal variables by considering the theoretical positions that have neglected them, demonstrating how internal variables have imposed themselves within the analysis—even concerning the positions rejecting them. Thus, we will begin by presenting theoretical positions denying this influence and proceed to supportive stances as follows:

Section One – The Realist Perspective and the Systemic Explanation Model of Foreign Policy:

Realism has undergone an evolutionary trajectory since its inception, leading to the emergence of numerous trends within the realist perspective. The actual beginning of realism’s emergence was marked by Morgenthau’s contributions to what was termed traditional realism. Traditional realism was later modified due to shifts within the structure of the international environment, further incorporating new theoretical elements developed in the form of structural new realism with Kenneth Waltz. A significant contribution within the realist perspective involved the emergence of offensive-defensive orientations within the framework known as neoclassical realism.

Realism, in its various forms (traditional, new/structural, neoclassical), has sought to provide acceptable explanations for international relations phenomena, with a common point among them asserting the influence of international environmental data on the behaviors of foreign actors. However, a noteworthy observation concerning their views on the nature of the separation between domestic and foreign policies is the variation in the degree of this separation, manifesting as an absolute divide among proponents of traditional and structural realism. Meanwhile, proponents of neoclassical realism tend to soften this division, asserting the influence and importance of internal determinants of the state in understanding external behavior alongside external determinants.

Thus, we will clarify this divergence among realists regarding the issue of division or linkage between both internal and external environments.

First: Structural Realism by Kenneth Waltz and the Model of a Solid Separation between the Internal and External Environment:

Proponents of this theoretical direction in foreign policy analysis are prompted by the question: “Why do states of similar status in the international system exhibit similar behaviors despite internal differences?” Similarly, inquiries arise about the justification for the persistence of states’ foreign policies amid shifts in political leadership or variations in controlling ideologies or prevailing social and political values.

Realism categorizes its analysis of states’ foreign behaviors towards each other within a top-down approach, wherein state behavior is understood from the perspective of the international system as key to elucidating state behavior. According to this theory, incentives and constraints, or behavioral standards, are external to any actor and are fundamentally systemic.

Waltz’s position on the issue of separating the domestic sphere from the foreign realm extends from historical views already articulated by traditional realists. Consequently, we will briefly present the main premises of traditional realist theory to facilitate the understanding of new realist proposals later.

Realism initially emerged through its traditional form, featuring contributions from Morgenthau, Carr, Niebuhr, and various early realist thinkers who attempted to adapt their thinking to the upheaval events surrounding the twentieth century, characterized by widespread disorder, insecurity, and escalating conflicts. Their works reflect this reality, dominating the field of international relations during the Cold War period.

Realism assumes that international affairs consist of a struggle for power among states seeking individual advantage.

In summary, the foundations and perspectives of classical realism regarding international politics can be condensed into these points:

1. Realist views stem from ancient writings of thinkers such as: Sun Tzu, Thucydides, and Hobbes.
2. Realism revolves around a struggle for power in international relations, as no overarching force exists.
3. From the realist perspective, states are the most important actors by far.
4. States require security (national) to protect their national interests, aiming to gain power within this framework.
5. States are rational actors striving to maximize benefits while minimizing costs associated with achieving their goals.
6. The state is treated as a unitary actor for analytical purposes, confronting the external world as an integrated unit, similar to billiard balls— regional states are in perpetual collision.

Classical realism depended on specific concepts to comprehend and explain various complex phenomena within international politics, including foreign policy. Key concepts adopted by this approach for explaining foreign behavior include power, national interest, maximizing gains, self-reliance, rationality, and international anarchy.

Consequently, the analytical approach adopted by Morgenthau views the foreign policy-making process as persistently rational, meaning that it only involves reconciling available means with fixed objectives. Therefore, every foreign policy is rational as it continuously aims to maximize power and national interests.

When relying on “national interest,” the primary premise posits that realizing the national interest of the state is the ultimate, consistent aim of its foreign policy. As such, national policy becomes the focal point or the main driving force behind any state’s foreign policy.

The new realism’s proponents assert that the international environment is characterized by anarchic conditions and that most interactions among states are influenced by the structure of this system, rendering the nature of the internal environment of little consequence at the level of analysis.

Thus, Waltz defends a systemic perspective, whereby the structure and nature of the international system substantially shape and define the behavior of states and their foreign policies. In understanding state behavior within the sphere of international relations, significant importance is allocated to systemic variables while largely neglecting domestic dynamics.

Thus, according to the evaluation of the components of state behavior, along with their foreign policies, it’s concluded that foreign policies of states are primarily influenced by structural considerations and the intricacies inherent within the international system.

References

“Foreign Policy Analysis: New Approaches” by Chris Alden and Amnon Aran. This book examines how domestic factors, including bureaucracies and globalization, impact foreign policy decisions. ​routledge.com

“The Domestic Politics of Foreign Aid” by Erik Lundsgaarde. Lundsgaarde analyzes how societal and governmental actors within donor countries shape development policy choices. ​routledge.com+1Taylor & Francis+1

“Domestic Politics and International Relations in US-Japan Trade Policymaking: The GATT Uruguay Round Agriculture Negotiations” by Christopher C. Meyerson. This work explores the interplay between domestic politics and international relations in the context of US-Japan trade negotiations. ​SpringerLink

“Contemporary Israel: Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Security Challenges” edited by Robert O. Freedman. This collection provides insights into how Israel’s domestic political landscape influences its foreign policy and security considerations. ​routledge.com

“Leaders, Institutions, and Foreign Policy Change: Soviet/Russian Behavior, 1985–2000” by Jeffrey S. Lantis. Lantis investigates how leadership and institutional changes within the Soviet Union and Russia affected their foreign policy decisions.​

“The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy: Insights from Neoclassical Realism” edited by Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, Steven E. Lobell, and Norrin M. Ripsman. This volume discusses how internal factors shape states’ foreign policies through the lens of neoclassical realism.​

“Democracy and Foreign Policy: The Fallacy of Political Realism” by Bernard Cecil Cohen. Cohen examines the relationship between democratic institutions and foreign policy formulation.​

“Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy” by Ole R. Holsti. This book analyzes the impact of public opinion on the United States’ foreign policy decisions.​

“The Logic of Two-Level Games: Understanding the Domestic-International Interaction” by Robert D. Putnam. Putnam introduces the concept of two-level games to explain how domestic and international factors interact in policy negotiations.​

“Domestic Politics and Norm Diffusion in International Relations: Ideas Do Not Float Freely” by Thomas Risse-Kappen. This work explores how domestic political structures influence the adoption of international norms.​

“The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy Since Vietnam” by Richard Sobel. Sobel assesses how public sentiment has shaped U.S. foreign policy decisions post-Vietnam War.​

“War, Presidents, and Public Opinion” by John E. Mueller. Mueller investigates the relationship between wartime events, presidential decisions, and public opinion.​

“The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence” edited by Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick. This collection examines various internal factors that influence U.S. foreign policy.​

“Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy” by James M. Lindsay. Lindsay analyzes the role of the U.S. Congress in shaping foreign policy decisions.​

“The Politics of International Economic Relations” by Joan E. Spero and Jeffrey A. Hart. This book discusses how domestic political considerations affect international economic policies.​

“Interest Groups and Trade Policy” by Gene M. Grossman and Elhanan Helpman. The authors explore how domestic interest groups influence trade policy decisions.​

“Media and Foreign Policy” edited by Simon Serfaty. This volume examines the impact of media on the formulation and execution of foreign policy.​

“The Influence of Domestic Interests on U.S. Foreign Policy” by Michael J. Hiscox. Hiscox investigates how domestic economic interests shape U.S. foreign policy choices.​

“The Domestic Context of Soviet Foreign Policy” by Seweryn Bialer. This work analyzes how internal Soviet politics influenced its foreign policy during the Cold War.​

“Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics: The American Experience” by James N. Rosenau. Rosenau explores the interplay between domestic political dynamics and foreign policy in the United States.