Formation and Transformation of National Role Concepts in Contemporary International Relations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.D/2024.15.3.012Keywords:
role adaptation , geopolitical changes , power shifts , strategic interests , global structures , international relationsAbstract
The purpose of this article is to assess the significance of national role conceptions (NRCs) in the analysis of states' foreign policy by highlighting their internal and external dimensions. The article evaluates the significance of role theory in the context of different schools of international relations. The article compares existing definitions of NRCs and identifies their specific limitations, including the limitation of engagement levels, the assumption of internal consensus, and the neglect of role dynamics. The article proposes a new definition of NRCs that includes a dynamic and collective understanding of a nation's strategic goals, considering both internal cultural and social factors as well as external environmental shifts and influences. As a result, the analysis of NRCs is proposed as an effective tool for addressing theoretical and practical issues in international relations, with the goal of explaining and predicting foreign policy behavior.
References
Cantir, C., & Kaarbo, J. (2016). Unpacking Ego in Role Theory: Vertical and Horizontal Role Contestation and Foreign Policy 1. In Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations (pp. 1-22). Routledge.
Breuning, M. (2011). Role theory research in international relations: state of the art and blind spots. Role theory in international relations, 16-35 (p.19).
Thies, C. G., & Breuning, M. (2012). Integrating foreign policy analysis and international relations through role theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), 1-4.
Harnisch, S. (2011). Role theory: operationalization of key concepts. In Role theory in international relations (pp. 7-15). Routledge.
Walker, S. (1987). The relevance of role theory to foreign policy analysis. Role theory and foreign policy analysis, 1-
Thies, C. G. (2010). State socialization and structural realism. Security Studies, 19(4), 689-717.
Checkel, J. T. (1998). The constructive turn in international relations theory. World politics, 50(2), 324-348.
Breuning, M. (2011). Role theory research in international relations: state of the art and blind spots. Role theory in international relations, 16-35 (p.19).
Backman, C. W. (1970). Role theory and international relations: A commentary and extension. International Studies Quarterly, 14(3), 310-319.
Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International studies quarterly, 14(3), 233-309.
Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International studies quarterly, 14(3), 233-309.
Wish, N. B. (1980). Foreign policy makers and their national role conceptions. International Studies Quarterly, 24(4), 532-554, (pp. 533-535).
Cantir, C., & Kaarbo, J. (2016). Unpacking Ego in Role Theory: Vertical and Horizontal Role Contestation and Foreign Policy 1. In Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations (pp. 1-22). Routledge.
Shih, C. Y. (1988). National role conception as foreign policy motivation: The psychocultural bases of Chinese diplomacy. Political Psychology, 599-631.
Kaarbo, J., & Cantir, C. (2017). Domestic role contestation and foreign policy. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 1-20
Koenig, N. (2016). Multilevel role contestation: The EU in the Libyan crisis. In Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations (pp. 157-173). Routledge.
Krotz, U. (2002). National Role Conceptions and Foreign Policies: France and Germany Compared. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 02.4, 2002.
Hymans, J. E. (2006). The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 16-20
Harnisch, S. (2011). Role theory: operationalization of key concepts. In Role theory in international relations (pp. 7-15). Routledge.
Breuning, M. (2011). Role theory research in international relations: state of the art and blind spots. Role theory in international relations, 16-35.
Wish, N. B. (1980). Foreign policy makers and their national role conceptions. International Studies Quarterly, 24(4), 532-554
Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International studies quarterly, 14(3), 233-309, (p.243).
Wish, N. B. (1980). Foreign policy makers and their national role conceptions. International Studies Quarterly, 24(4), 532-554.
Akbaba, Y., Özdamar, Ö., & James, P. (2019). Role Theory in the Middle East and North Africa: Politics, Economics and Identity. Routledge.
Harnisch, S., Frank, C., & Maull, H. W. (2011). Conclusion: role theory, role change, and the international social order. In Role Theory in International Relations (pp. 252-261). Routledge.
Galstyan, N. S., Abrahamyan, E., & Davtyan, E. (2021). Armenia’s International Status Aspirations in 2008–2020. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Özdamar, Ö. (2016). Domestic Sources of Changing Turkish Foreign Policy Toward the MENA During the 2010s: A Role Theoretic Approach 1. In Domestic role contestation, foreign policy, and international relations (pp. 89-104). Routledge.
Grossman, M., Schortgen, F., & Friedrichs, G. M. (2022). Introduction: Defining Roles in a Polycentric World. In National Role Conceptions in a New Millennium (pp. 1-22). Routledge.
Harnisch, S., Frank, C., & Maull, H. W. (2011). Conclusion: role theory, role change, and the international social order. In Role Theory in International Relations (pp. 252-261). Routledge.
Holsti, K. J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International studies quarterly, 14(3), 233-309.
Adigbuo, R. (2007). Beyond IR theories: The case for national role conceptions. Politikon, 34(1), 83-97.
Breuning, M. (2011). Role theory research in international relations: state of the art and blind spots. Role theory in international relations, 16-35, (p. 16)
Hudson, V. M. (1999). Cultural expectations of one's own and other nations' foreign policy action templates. Political Psychology, 20(4), 767-801.
Shih, C. Y. (1988). National role conception as foreign policy motivation: The psychocultural bases of Chinese diplomacy. Political Psychology, 599-631.
Maull, H. W. (2011). Hegemony reconstructed?: America's role conception and its “leadership” within its core alliances. In Role theory in international relations (pp. 167-193). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Author(s) and the Journal Political Sciences:Bulletin of Yerevan University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
