When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision

Kesgin, Barış; Kaarbo, Juliet

doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00390.x

Cited by 70 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent study of the effects of parliaments on foreign policy, Kesgin and Kaarbo (2010) note that there are very few systematic studies on the role of parliaments in foreign policy. They attribute the lack of attention to the idea in previous research that parliaments do not influence the external behaviour of states.…”

Section: Political Party Oppositionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Domestic politics and foreign policy change in small states

Doeser¹

2011

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thearticlesetsouttofurtheranunderstandingofhowdomesticpoliticscanimpactonforeign policychangeinsmallstates.Thecaseofinterestisthechangethatoccurredintheforeignpolicy ofDenmarkwhenitsgovernmentmanagedtoputanendtothe'footnotepolicy'inmid-1988. The main conclusion is that changes in two particular domestic political factors, in terms of politicalpartyoppositionandpublicopposition,facilitatedachangeinforeignpolicyfortheDanish government.Changesinpartyandpublicoppositioncreatedopportunitiesforthegovernment touseforeignpolicychangeasastrategytoincreaseitspoliticalpoweronthedomesticscene. Inthiscaseofforeignpolicychange,domesticpoliticalfactorsandexternalforceswereequally important.

show abstract

Section: Political Party Oppositionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Domestic politics and foreign policy change in small states

Doeser¹

2011

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, considerable variation exists at the constitutional level regarding the scope of military operations in which democracies are legally permitted to engage. In recent years, a growing literature has focused on parliamentary veto power and constitutional constraints in the context of democratic accountability and as institutional explanations for democratic participation and nonparticipation in various kinds of military operations (Ku and Jacobson 2003; Born and Ha¨nggi 2005;Dieterich et al 2009;Kesgin and Kaarbo 2010;Kolanoski 2010;Wagner 2011).…”

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Studies suggest, however, that significant variation exists that eludes the common parliamentary-presidential distinction. It is rather the degree of legislative involvement in military deployment decisions that can, under certain preconditions, reduce war participation (Dieterich et al 2009;Kesgin and Kaarbo 2010).…”

Section: Institutional Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Parliamentary peace or partisan politics? Democracies’ participation in the Iraq War

Mello

2012

J Int Relat Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to explain democracies' military participation in the Iraq War. Prior studies have identified institutional and partisan differences as potential explanatory factors for the observed variance. The interaction of institutions and partisanship, however, has gone largely unobserved. I argue that these factors must be analysed in conjunction: institutional constraints presume actors that fulfil their role as veto players to the executive. Likewise, partisan politics is embedded in institutional frames that enable or constrain decision-making. Hence I suggest a comparative approach that combines these factors to explain why some democracies joined the ad hoc coalition against Iraq and others did not. To investigate the interaction between institutions, partisanship and war participation I apply fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The analysis reveals that the conjunction of right-of-centre governments with an absence of both parliamentary veto rights and constitutional restrictions was sufficient for participation in the Iraq War. In turn, for countries where the constitution requires parliamentary approval of military deployments, the distribution of preferences within the legislature proved to be decisive for military participation or non-participation.

show abstract

“…34 we conduct robustness tests in connection with this potential risk of omitted variable bias in the results section. 42 kesgin andkaarbo 2010;Vassilev 2006. the first dependent variable (Sent troops to Iraq in 2003) is coded 1 if a country sent troops to Iraq by the end of 2003 and 0 otherwise.…”

Section: Theory and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

Goldsmith¹,

Horiuchi²

2012

World Pol.

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

D oeS "soft power" matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of those countries? we examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US during the post-9/11 period.we draw our basic conceptual framework from joseph nye, who coined the term "soft power." 1 according to nye, soft power is "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments." 2 this is an especially appropriate framework for us because, as nye puts it, "soft power is about mobilizing cooperation from others." 3 as we do in this article, he frequently uses public opinion surveys regarding attitudes in foreign countries toward the US and its policies. 4 It is also appropriate because the effectiveness of soft power hinges on the targeted country's public attitudes (that is, favorability) toward the country wielding, or attempting to wield, international influence (in this study, the US). *earlier versions of this article were presented at the United States Study centre (ussc), University of Sydney, on august 11, 2009; the center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern california, on january 29, 2010; and the School of International relations and Pacific Studies, University of california, San Diego, on february 2, 2010. we thank nick cull, ellis krauss, Graeme Gill, Murray Goot, Simon jackman, Brendon o'connor, Shirley Scott, fred teiwes, other seminar participants, and the anonymous reviewers for useful comments. we are grateful to the ussc for funding through the 2009 research grants program and to takashi Inoguchi and emma thomas for providing parts of the data for analysis. for very capable research assistance, we thank weilin chiu, william courcier, robert flawith, keira Glasgow, and jens hansen-Ölmedal.

show abstract

When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision

Cited by 70 publications

References 32 publications

Domestic politics and foreign policy change in small states

Domestic politics and foreign policy change in small states

Parliamentary peace or partisan politics? Democracies’ participation in the Iraq War

In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About