Suchergebnisse

1. The Value and Values of Diplomacy 1. - 2. Creating Value: A Psychological Theory of Diplomacy 22. - 3. Tabling the Issue: Two Franco-British Negotiations 58. - 4. Setting the Table: German Reassurance, British Brokering, and French Understanding 87. - 5. Getting to the Table: The Diplomatic Perils of the Exchange of Notes 117. - 6. Cards on the Table: The Treaty of Mutual Guarantee and the "Spirit of Locarno" 137. - 7. Turning the Tables: Reparations, Early Evacuation, and the Hague Conference 162. - 8. Additional Value: The Rise and Fall of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process 188. - 9. Searching for Stresemann: The Lessons of the 1920s for Diplomacy and the Middle East Peace Process 236

What is the value of diplomacy? How does it affect the course of foreign affairs independent of the distribution of power and foreign policy interests? Theories of international relations too often implicitly reduce the dynamics and outcomes of diplomacy to structural factors rather than the subtle qualities of negotiation. If diplomacy is an independent effect on the conduct of world politics, it has to add value, and we have to be able to show what that value is. In Diplomacy's Value, Brian C. Rathbun sets forth a comprehensive theory of diplomacy, based on his understanding that political leaders have distinct diplomatic styles—coercive bargaining, reasoned dialogue, and pragmatic statecraft.

The value and values of diplomacy -- Creating value: a psychological theory of diplomacy -- Tabling the issue: two Franco-British failures of diplomacy -- Setting the table: German reassurance, British brokering and French understanding -- Getting to the table: the diplomatic perils of the exchange of notes -- Cards on the table: the negotiation of the treaty of mutual guarantee and the spirit of Locarno -- Turning the tables: reparations, early evacuation and the Hague conference -- Additional value: the rise and fall of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- Searching for Stresemann: the lessons of the 1920s for diplomacy and the Middle East peace process

Trust in International Cooperation challenges conventional wisdoms concerning the part which trust plays in international cooperation and the origins of American multilateralism. Brian C. Rathbun questions rational institutionalist arguments, demonstrating that trust precedes rather than follows the creation of international organizations. Drawing on social psychology, he shows that individuals placed in the same structural circumstances show markedly different propensities to cooperate based on their beliefs about the trustworthiness of others. Linking this finding to political psychology, Rathbun explains why liberals generally pursue a more multilateral foreign policy than conservatives, evident in the Democratic Party's greater support for a genuinely multilateral League of Nations, United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Rathbun argues that the post-World War Two bipartisan consensus on multilateralism is a myth, and differences between the parties are growing continually starker

It is frequently maintained that rationalism is something other than an 'ism' of International Relations. Inspired by critical theory but using quantitative survey data, this article takes issue with that notion, arguing that rationalist work – with its emphasis on interests, institutions, and information – has a distinct logic of individualistic utilitarianism. It therefore exhibits all of the subjective biases of other 'isms', defining both the answers and the very questions that are asked. Using data from the 2011 TRIP survey, I show that those substantive commitments reveal themselves in the economic ideology of those who make rationalist assumptions in their work. Parallel to a view of international relations in which egoistic units seek material gains, rationalists identify as economic libertarians at a much higher rate than non-rationalists. All of this suggests that rationalists have an unacknowledged and unconscious bias in their scholarship that threatens the positivistic epistemology to which most claim to be committed.

"Empirical Evidence for Empirical International Relations Theorizing: Tests of Epistemological Assumptions With Data" published on by Oxford University Press.

What is the value of diplomacy? How does it affect the course of foreign affairs independent of the distribution of power and foreign policy interests? Theories of international relations too often implicitly reduce the dynamics and outcomes of diplomacy to structural factors rather than the subtle qualities of negotiation. If diplomacy is an independent effect on the conduct of world politics, it has to add value, and we have to be able to show what that value is. In Diplomacy's Value, Brian C. Rathbun sets forth a comprehensive theory of diplomacy, based on his understanding that political leaders have distinct diplomatic styles: coercive bargaining, reasoned dialogue, and pragmatic statecraft. Drawing on work in the psychology of negotiation, Rathbun explains how diplomatic styles are a function of the psychological attributes of leaders and the party coalitions they represent. The combination of these styles creates a certain spirit of negotiation that facilitates or obstructs agreement. Rathbun applies the argument to relations among France, Germany, and Great Britain during the 1920s as well as Palestinian–Israeli negotiations since the 1990s. His analysis, based on an intensive analysis of primary documents, shows how different diplomatic styles can successfully resolve apparently intractable dilemmas and equally, how they can thwart agreements that were seemingly within reach.