The Settlement of Boundary Disputes: Mexico, The United States, and the International Boundary Commission

Wilson, Larman C.

doi:10.1093/iclqaj/29.1.38

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Section was given prime responsibility for negotiations with Mexico and the State of Texas. Commissioner Joseph Friedkin worked closely with Texas congressmen, state officials, and the City of El Paso to work out satisfactory arrangements (Martin 1980;Jessup 1973;Wilson 1980). The strategy adopted by the U.S.…”

Section: The Chamizal Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

State Influence in Foreign Policymaking: Water Related Environmental Disputes Along the United States-Mexico Border

Mumme

1985

Western Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RADITIONALLY, scholars have conceptualized international relations as &dquo;conducted by political units treated almost as personali-JL ties. The domestic structure is taken as given; foreign policy begins where domestic policy ends&dquo; (Kissinger 1966: 503). This tendency has not gone without its critics, however. In a pathbreaking study of domestic influences Rosenau (1967: 4) observed, &dquo;domestic factors may be of considerable significance even if they are not primary sources of foreign policy, and on some issues they may well be dominant.&dquo; Over the last decade this bifurcation of domestic and foreign policy and its attendant concept of the nation-state as unitary actor have virtually broken down as scholars have examined the foreign policy implications of international interdependency (Keohane and Nye 1977), bureaucratic politics (Allison 1971), domestic structure (Katzenstein 1976;Wagner 1974;Hanrieder 1978), and subnational diplomacy (Duchacek 1983(Duchacek , 1984a(Duchacek , 1984b.As the state-centric paradigm has &dquo;dissolved,&dquo; domestic structures have increasingly absorbed the attention of researchers. Domestic structures, loosely conceptualized as institutions, and organized interests at the national and subnational level, are presumed to exert a determining influence on the behavior of foreign policy decision-makers. At the most general level, the relationship between domestic structure and foreign policy creation has been conceptualized vertically in terms of state-society relations, where societal demands on the state generate foreign policy behavior. These statesociety relations may vary from state to state and issue to issue in the degree that authority is centralized or dispersed, affecting policy outcomes (Katzenstein 1977: 15-19). As Hanreider observes, however, this model reflects a traditional state-centric, government-to-government approach at the international level that neglects the variety of cross-national relations seen in the international system. He suggests a typology of international interactions that includes (a) horizontal linkages between governments; (b) lateral, society to society, relations among subnational actors; and (c) integrative, or supra-national, processes to which states are party (Hanrieder 1978(Hanrieder : 1278.While Hanrieder's typology does clarify the diversity of international interactions, moving away from the state-centric model, it does not adequately specify the manner in which domestic structures may be linked to NOTE: An earlier version of this paper was given at the

show abstract

Section: The Chamizal Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

State Influence in Foreign Policymaking: Water Related Environmental Disputes Along the United States-Mexico Border

Mumme

1985

Western Political Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

American-Mexican Boundary Disputes and Cooperation

Baade¹

1983

Regional Cooperation, Organizations and Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appendices A–F

Huth¹,

Allee²

2003

The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

List of figures page x List of tables xi Acknowledgments xvii 1 Another study of democracy and international conflict? 1 2 Pathways to conflict escalation and resolution in international disputes 34 3 The international strategic context 56 4 Domestic institutions and the Political Accountability Model 68 5 Domestic institutions and the Political Norms Model 101 6 Domestic institutions and the Political Affinity Model 124 7 Empirical results for decisions to challenge the status quo 138 8 Empirical results for decisions to offer concessions in negotiations 189 9 Empirical results for decisions to escalate with military force 231 10 What have we learned about the democratic peace? 277 Appendices A-F 298 Bibliography 461 Index 485 ix

show abstract

The Settlement of Boundary Disputes: Mexico, The United States, and the International Boundary Commission

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

State Influence in Foreign Policymaking: Water Related Environmental Disputes Along the United States-Mexico Border

State Influence in Foreign Policymaking: Water Related Environmental Disputes Along the United States-Mexico Border

American-Mexican Boundary Disputes and Cooperation

Appendices A–F

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About