Morality in Foreign Policy

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
{"title":"Morality in Foreign Policy","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The foreign policy analysis (FPA) subfield is situated at the intersection of international relations (IR) and foreign policy behaviors of states. It is characterized by the primacy of the agent-specific ontology and the various cognitive decision-making theoretical models that explain the causal link between actors and foreign policymaking. FPA privileges realist conceptions of the world and downplays the role of normative considerations in foreign policymaking. With the end of the Cold War and the increased frequency of humanitarian interventions foreign policy analyses devoted more attention to normative considerations and the role of ethics or morality in foreign policy, while also retaining the focus on agent-specific explanations. In particular, the just war theory, while primarily a theory/tradition about moral reasoning, became the most prominent theoretical model in the debates about humanitarian interventions. However, the just war theory scholars mostly debate the theory’s reasoning with reference to the specific humanitarian actions instead of using it as a heuristic device for mapping out the moral compass of the actual decision makers. In other words, the FPA subfield has not experienced any paradigmatic transformations, similar to those in IR, and it is not ready to deal with the possibility of morality as a separate analytical category. The British foreign policy literature differs from the American along those lines, especially concerning the foreign policy of the European Union (EU). This literature looks at morality as the initial motivating factor behind EU foreign policy, whereas the American scholarship debates the morality of foreign policy outcomes based on the criteria set out by the just war theory. The FPA subfield in the United States could benefit from thinking about morality from a critical perspective. Incorporating critical approaches in FPA will elevate the role of morality in foreign policymaking.","PeriodicalId":47031,"journal":{"name":"International Relations","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The foreign policy analysis (FPA) subfield is situated at the intersection of international relations (IR) and foreign policy behaviors of states. It is characterized by the primacy of the agent-specific ontology and the various cognitive decision-making theoretical models that explain the causal link between actors and foreign policymaking. FPA privileges realist conceptions of the world and downplays the role of normative considerations in foreign policymaking. With the end of the Cold War and the increased frequency of humanitarian interventions foreign policy analyses devoted more attention to normative considerations and the role of ethics or morality in foreign policy, while also retaining the focus on agent-specific explanations. In particular, the just war theory, while primarily a theory/tradition about moral reasoning, became the most prominent theoretical model in the debates about humanitarian interventions. However, the just war theory scholars mostly debate the theory’s reasoning with reference to the specific humanitarian actions instead of using it as a heuristic device for mapping out the moral compass of the actual decision makers. In other words, the FPA subfield has not experienced any paradigmatic transformations, similar to those in IR, and it is not ready to deal with the possibility of morality as a separate analytical category. The British foreign policy literature differs from the American along those lines, especially concerning the foreign policy of the European Union (EU). This literature looks at morality as the initial motivating factor behind EU foreign policy, whereas the American scholarship debates the morality of foreign policy outcomes based on the criteria set out by the just war theory. The FPA subfield in the United States could benefit from thinking about morality from a critical perspective. Incorporating critical approaches in FPA will elevate the role of morality in foreign policymaking.
外交政策中的道德
外交政策分析(foreign policy analysis, FPA)子领域位于国际关系(IR)和国家外交政策行为的交叉点。它的特点是主体特定本体和各种认知决策理论模型的首要地位,解释行为者和外交政策制定之间的因果关系。FPA推崇现实主义的世界观,淡化了规范性考虑在外交政策制定中的作用。随着冷战的结束和人道主义干预的增加,外交政策分析更多地关注规范性考虑和伦理或道德在外交政策中的作用,同时也保留了对特定代理人解释的关注。特别是正义战争理论,虽然主要是一种关于道德推理的理论/传统,但在关于人道主义干预的辩论中成为最突出的理论模型。然而,正义战争理论的学者们大多是根据具体的人道主义行动来讨论正义战争理论的推理,而不是把它作为一种启发式的工具来绘制实际决策者的道德指南针。换句话说,FPA子领域没有经历任何范式转换,类似于那些在IR中,它还没有准备好处理道德作为一个单独的分析类别的可能性。在这些方面,英国的外交政策文献与美国的有所不同,特别是关于欧盟的外交政策。这些文献将道德视为欧盟外交政策背后的最初激励因素,而美国学者则根据正义战争理论设定的标准来辩论外交政策结果的道德。美国的FPA分支可以从批判的角度思考道德。将批评方法纳入外交政策将提升道德在外交政策制定中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Relations
International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: International Relations is explicitly pluralist in outlook. Editorial policy favours variety in both subject-matter and method, at a time when so many academic journals are increasingly specialised in scope, and sectarian in approach. We welcome articles or proposals from all perspectives and on all subjects pertaining to international relations: law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment, and so on, in addition to more mainstream conceptual work and policy analysis. We believe that such pluralism is in great demand by the academic and policy communities and the interested public.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信