International Relations Theory and Foreign Policy Decisions
- 발행기관 서강대학교 국제대학원
- 지도교수 김재천
- 발행년도 2005
- 학위수여년월 200508
- 학위명 석사
- 학과 및 전공 국제대학원
- 식별자(기타) 000000084710
- 본문언어 영어
목차
Despite a host of criticisms heaped on it, realism as a whole is still considered the dominant theory of international relations. This thesis focuses on the relevancy of realism in helping us understand our own world. To delve into this issue, this thesis investigates the cases of the Bush administration？ foreign policy decisions toward North Korea and Iraq ？ two countries on Bush？ ？xis of evil.？ That the US invaded Iraq, while leaning toward diplomatic solutions to North Korea？ nuclear ambition, is somewhat contradictory to the conventional wisdom of realism that states rationally focus on the distribution of material capabilities and act accordingly.
There is no dearth of scholarly as well as journalistic endeavors to explain the US policy differences towards North Korea and Iraq. Some useful insights they provide notwithstanding, the existing works fail to generate a complete explanation for U.S. policy difference. This thesis argues that their difficulty in explaining the policy difference stems primarily from paying little attention to two major factors: (1) the nature and characteristics of the Bush administration？ foreign policy; (2) the dramatic impact of September 11 on the U.S. public attitude and domestic politics as ？he essence of decision.？
This thesis argues the Bush administration？ policy difference could be explained in terms of its ultimate goal of foreign policy: that is, the preservation of a unique hegemonic system. In this context, this thesis also argues that the Bush administration？ foreign policy reflects the characteristics of offensive realism.
However, despite some advancement in addressing the U.S. policy difference when compared to the existing realist approaches, which focus primarily on military capabilities and geopolitics in Northeast Asia, the offensive realist language also tends to ignore political contexts in which the Bush administration had to deal with after September 11, 2001.
In conclusion, despite its possibilities for explaining the U.S. policy difference, realism misses some crucial points which should not be dismissed: that is, the process of how decision-makers decide a certain policy option under several constraints. It does not mean, however, that realism is irrelevant in addressing the U.S. policy differences toward North Korea and Iraq. In this regard, this thesis argues that realism combined with time and space-specific variables can provide a more complete account of world affairs.
