Constructivist theorists view norms as shared understandings that reflect `legitimate social purpose'. Because the focus is on the ideational building blocks that undergird a community's shared understandings, rather than material forces, persuasive communication is considered fundamentally important to norm-building. In practice, this means that frames are crafted by norm entrepreneurs so as to resonate with audiences. However, the constructivist empirical literature illustrates the central importance of material levers in achieving normative change. Those who promote specific norms also manipulate frames strategically to achieve their ends and do not necessarily convince others to alter their preferences. The global debate over `core labor standards' is highlighted to illustrate the various means by which frames can be distorted by communicators acting strategically, perhaps even to secure their own instrumental interests or to maintain their powerful status. Norms that do not reflect a genuinely voluntary consensus can be seen as illegitimate.
The “Bush Doctrine” asserting the right to preemptively attack states that support or harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has bitterly divided world opinion. Many seemingly long‐settled questions of international politics, especially involving the unilateral use of force, have been reopened. Although we are concerned about the implications of the Bush Doctrine, we do not agree that it fundamentally changes world politics as some have asserted. Instead, we argue that the global debate leading up to the war in Iraq signals widespread support for existing international norms. Most states continue to see force as a last resort, properly subject to multilateral control in all but the most urgent cases of imminent self‐defense. The nature of American diplomatic maneuverings in the United Nations and the public statements of high‐level officials suggest that even the United States continues to recognize the importance of these norms.
Renewed attention to the role of public opinion on foreign policy outcomes in quantitative correlational studies indicates that opinion influences foreign policy. However, authors of these studies note that their conclusions could be flawed if elites simply manipulate public opinion, rather than responding to it. Both realist and neorealist perspectives on public opinion are consistent with a manipulation perspective. As urged by those using quantitative data, this article examines a case using declassified archival information in order to examine responsiveness in a situation ripe for manipulation. Specifically, U.S. reactions to Soviet Sputnik launches are scrutinized. President Eisenhower was much less concerned about Soviet actions than was the general public but nonetheless substantially altered many defense programs in order to meet perceived public demands. The President acknowledged privately that at least two-thirds of a spending supplement was used to meet public fears, not real security needs. This finding is inconsistent with prevailing realist theories and standard historical interpretations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.