Bibliography for Politics of Foreign Policy BETA

1.

International Studies Association. Foreign policy analysis. 2005; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2244344

2.

Royal Institute of International Affairs, EBSCO Publishing (Firm), JSTOR (Organization). International affairs. 1944; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2200321

3.

Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, EBSCO Publishing (Firm). British journal of politics and international relations. 1999; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2196849

4.

European journal of international relations. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2199017

5.

Cambridge review of international affairs. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2228528

6.

British International Studies Association, Cambridge University Press. Review of international studies. 1981; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2204860

7.

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, JSTOR (Organization), M.I.T. Press, Project MUSE., Thomson Gale (Firm). International security. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2200670

8.

Security studies. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2229313

9.

International Institute for Strategic Studies, Oxford University Press. Survival. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2205588

10.

Contemporary politics. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2228615

11.

LexisNexis (Firm). Politics. 2008; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b3072814

12.

International politics. 1996;

13.

International feminist journal of politics. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2200360

14.

International Studies Association, JSTOR (Organization). International studies quarterly. 1967; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2200679

15.

International Studies Association, JSTOR (Organization). International studies review. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2200680

16.

International studies perspectives. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2928675

17.

London School of Economics and Political Science. Millennium: journal of international studies. Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2289212

18.

American Political Science Association, JSTOR (Organization). Perspectives on politics. 2003; Available from: https://eleanor.lib.gla.ac.uk/record=b2203859

19.

Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T, editors. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

20.

Juliet Kaarbo. Foreign Policy Analysis in the Twenty-First Century: Back to Comparison, Forward to Identity and Ideas. International Studies Review. 2003 Jun;5(2):155–202.

21.

Hudson VM. Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2005 Feb 4;1(1):1–30.

22.

Walter Carlsnaes. The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1992;36(3):245–70. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600772

23.

Snyder J. One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy [Internet]. 2004;(145):52–62. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4152944

24.

Garrison JA. Foreign Policy Analysis in 20/20: A Symposium. International Studies Review. 2003;5(2):155–202.

25.

Handbook of international relations. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE; 2013.

26.

Hudson VM, Vore CS. Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Mershon International Studies Review [Internet]. 1995;39(2):209–38. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/222751

27.

Mintz A, DeRouen KR. Understanding foreign policy decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

28.

Walker SG, Malici A, Schafer M. Rethinking foreign policy analysis: states, leaders, and the microfoundations of behavioral international relations. New York, N.Y.: Routledge; 2011.

29.

Arnold Wolfers. ‘National Security’ as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly [Internet]. 1952;67(4):481–502. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2145138

30.

Slater J. Ideology vs. The national interest: Bush, Sharon, and U.S. policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Security Studies. 2002 Oct 1;12(1):164–206.

31.

Williams MC. What is the National Interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR Theory. European Journal of International Relations. 2005;11(3):307–37.

32.

Weldes J. Constructing National Interests. European Journal of International Relations. 1996;2(3):275–318.

33.

Burchill S. The national interest in international relations theory. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.

34.

Chandler D. Culture Wars and International Intervention: An ‘Inside/Out’ View of the Decline of National Interest. International politics. 2004;41:354–74.

35.

Gilmore J. The uncertain merger of values and interests in UK foreign policy. International Affairs. 2014 May;90(3):541–57.

36.

Morgenthau HJ. In defense of the national interest: a critical examination of American foreign policy. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America; 1982.

37.

Beard CA, Smith GHE. The idea of national interest: an analytical study in American foreign policy. New York: Macmillan; 1934.

38.

Clinton WD. The two faces of national interest. Vol. Series: Political traditions in foreign policy series. Baton Rouge, La: Louisiana State University Press; 1994.

39.

Edmunds T. Complexity, strategy and the national interest. International Affairs. 2014 May;90(3):525–39.

40.

Gaskarth J. Strategizing Britain’s role in the world. International Affairs. 2014 May;90(3):559–81.

41.

Morris J. How Great is Britain? Power, Responsibility and Britain’s Future Global Role. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations. 2011 Aug;13(3):326–47.

42.

Clinton WD. The National Interest: Normative Foundations. The Review of Politics. 1986 Sep;48(04).

43.

Cornish P, Dorman A. National defence in the age of austerity. International Affairs. 2009 Jul;85(4):733–53.

44.

Cornish P, Dorman AM. Smart muddling through: rethinking UK national strategy beyond Afghanistan. International Affairs. 2012 Mar;88(2):213–22.

45.

Edmunds T. British civil-military relations and the problem of risk. International Affairs. 2012 Mar;88(2):265–82.

46.

Fitz‐Gerald AM. A UK National Security Strategy: Institutional and Cultural Challenges. Defence Studies. 2008 Mar;8(1):4–25.

47.

Gallie WB. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society [Internet]. 1956;56:167–98. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544562

48.

Finnemore M. National interests in international society. Vol. Series: Cornell studies in political economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 1996.

49.

Hollis M, Smith S. Roles and Reasons in Foreign Policy Decision Making. British Journal of Political Science [Internet]. 1986;16(3):269–86. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/193813

50.

Lake DA, Powell R. Strategic choice and international relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1999.

51.

Fearon JD. Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization [Internet]. 1995;49(3):379–414. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2706903

52.

Gartzke E. War Is in the Error Term. International Organization [Internet]. 1999;53(3):567–87. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601290

53.

Kaarbo J, Cantir C. Role conflict in recent wars: Danish and Dutch debates over Iraq and Afghanistan. Cooperation and Conflict. 2013 Dec 1;48(4):465–83.

54.

Martin LL. The Contributions of Rational Choice: A Defense of Pluralism. International Security. 1999 Oct;24(2):74–83.

55.

Nincic M. The National Interest and its Interpretation. The Review of Politics. 1999 Dec;61(01).

56.

Risse-Kappen T. Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. World Politics [Internet]. 1991;43(4):479–512. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010534

57.

Oakes A. Diversionary War and Argentina’s Invasion of the Falkland Islands. Security Studies. 2006 Sep;15(3):431–63.

58.

Maoz Z, Russett B. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-1986. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. 1993;87(3):624–38. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938740

59.

Levy JS. Preventive War and Democratic Politics. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 2008;52(1):1–24. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/29734222

60.

Brown ME, Lynn-Jones SM, Miller SE. Debating the democratic peace. Vol. Series: International security readers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1996.

61.

Cowhey PF. Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitments: Japan and the United States. International Organization [Internet]. 1993;47(2):299–326. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706892

62.

Oakes A. Diversionary war: domestic unrest and international conflict. Stanford, California: Stanford Security Studies, an imprint of Stanford University Press; 2012.

63.

Strong J. Why Parliament Now Decides on War: Tracing the Growth of the Parliamentary Prerogative through Syria, Libya and Iraq. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations. 2014 Jul;

64.

Bennett DS, Nordstrom T. Foreign Policy Substitutability and Internal Economic Problems in Enduring Rivalries. The Journal of Conflict Resolution [Internet]. 2000;44(1):33–61. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/174621

65.

Leeds BA, Davis DR. Domestic Political Vulnerability and International Disputes. The Journal of Conflict Resolution [Internet]. 1997;41(6):814–34. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/174432

66.

Richards D, Morgan TC, Wilson RK, Schwebach VL, Young GD. Good Times, Bad Times, and the Diversionary Use of Force: A Tale of Some Not-So-Free Agents. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1993 Sep 1;37(3):504–35.

67.

Mor BD. Conflict in world politics: advances in the study of crisis, war and peace. Harvey FP, editor. Vol. Series: Advances in political science. Basingstoke: Macmillan; 1998.

68.

Gelpi C. Democratic Diversions: Governmental Structure and the Externalization of Domestic Conflict. The Journal of Conflict Resolution [Internet]. 1997;41(2):255–82. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/174373

69.

Sprecher C, DeRouen K. The Domestic Determinants of Foreign Policy Behavior in Middle Eastern Enduring Rivals, 1948-1998. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2005 Feb 4;1(1):121–41.

70.

Ray JL. Democracy and international conflict: an evaluation of the  democratic peace proposition. 1st pbk. ed. Vol. Series: Studies in international relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press; 1998.

71.

Cederman LE. Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Macrohistorical Learning Process. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. 2001;95(1):15–31. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3117626

72.

Russett BM, Oneal JR. Triangulating peace: democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. 1st ed. New York, NY: Norton; 2001.

73.

Maoz Z. The Controversy over the Democratic Peace: Rearguard Action or Cracks in the Wall? International Security [Internet]. 1997;22(1):162–98. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539333

74.

Gaubatz KT. Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations. International Organization [Internet]. 1996;50(1):109–39. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707000

75.

Schweller RL. Domestic Structure and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific? World Politics [Internet]. 1992;44(2):235–69. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010448

76.

Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.

77.

Allison GT. Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. 1969;63(3):689–718. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1954423

78.

Narizny K. The Political Economy of Alignment: Great Britain’s Commitments to Europe, 1905-39. International Security [Internet]. 2003;27(4):184–219. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137608

79.

Marsh K. Obama’s Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 Jul;10(3):265–88.

80.

Sinno AH. Organizations at war in Afghanistan and beyond. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 2008.

81.

Solingen E. Domestic Coalitions, Internationalization, and War: Then and Now. International Security [Internet]. 39(1):44–70. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ins/summary/v039/39.1.solingen.html

82.

Levy JS. Organizational Routines and the Causes of War. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1986;30(2):193–222. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600676

83.

Hudson VM. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Second edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2014.

84.

Allison GT, Zelikow P. Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Longman; 1999.

85.

Bendor J, Hammond TH. Rethinking Allison’s Models. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. 1992;86(2):301–22. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1964222

86.

Krasner SD. Are Bureaucracies Important? (Or Allison Wonderland). Foreign Policy [Internet]. 1972;(7):159–79. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147761

87.

Destler IM. Presidents, bureaucrats, and foreign policy: the politics of organizational reform. 1st Prinston pbk. ed. Vol. Series: Princeton paperbacks. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1974.

88.

Halperin MH, Clapp P, Kanter A. Bureaucratic politics and foreign policy. Washington: The Brookings Institution; 1974.

89.

Kaarbo J. Coalition politics and cabinet decision making: a comparative analysis of foreign policy choices. First paperback edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2013.

90.

Grodsky B. Lessons (Not) Learned: A New Look at Bureaucratic Politics and U.S. Foreign Policy-Making in the Post-Soviet Space. Problems of Post-Communism. 2014 Dec 8;56(2):43–57.

91.

Welch DA. The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect. International Security [Internet]. 1992;17(2):112–46. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539170

92.

Smith S. Policy Preferences and Bureaucratic Position: The Case of the American Hostage Rescue Mission. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) [Internet]. 1985;61(1):9–25. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2619777

93.

Snow DM, Brown E. Puzzle palaces and Foggy Bottom: U.S. foreign and defense policy-making in the 1990s. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 1994.

94.

Lieberthal KG, Lampton DM. Bureaucracy, politics, and decision making in post-Mao China. Vol. Series: Studies on China. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1992.

95.

Rhodes E. Do Bureaucratic Politics Matter?: Some Disconfirming Findings from the Case of the U.S. Navy. World Politics [Internet]. 1994;47(1):1–41. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2950678

96.

Valenta J. The Bureaucratic Politics Paradigm and the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia. Political Science Quarterly [Internet]. 1979;94(1):55–76. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2150156

97.

Brooks SG. Economic Actors’ Lobbying Influence on the Prospects for War and Peace. International Organization. 2013 Oct;67(04):863–88.

98.

Abelson DE. Old world, new world: the evolution and influence of foreign affairs think-tanks. International Affairs. 2014 Jan;90(1):125–42.

99.

Alden C, Aran A. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches. London: Routledge; 2012.

100.

Vanderbush W. Exiles and the Marketing of U.S. Policy toward Cuba and Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2009 Jul;5(3):287–306.

101.

Mearsheimer J, Walt S. The Israel Lobby. London Review of Books [Internet]. 28(6). Available from: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

102.

Trubowitz P. Sectionalism and American Foreign Policy: The Political Geography of Consensus and Conflict. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1992;36(2):173–90. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600880

103.

Hiscox MJ. International trade and political conflict: commerce, coalitions, and mobility. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2002.

104.

Brawley MR. Factoral or Sectoral Conflict? Partially Mobile Factors and the Politics of Trade in Imperial Germany. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1997;41(4):633–53. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600856

105.

Milner H. Trading Places: Industries for Free Trade. World Politics [Internet]. 1988;40(3):350–76. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010217

106.

Rogowski R. Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. 1987;81(4):1121–37. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962581

107.

Fearon JD. Domestic politics, foreign policy, and theories of international relations. Annual Review of Political Science. 1998 Jun;1(1):289–313.

108.

Sears DO, Huddy L, Levy JS. The Oxford handbook of political psychology [Internet]. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.001.0001

109.

Janis IL. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Second edition. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 1982.

110.

Levy JS. Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1997;41(1):87–112. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600908

111.

Mercer J. Rationality and Psychology in International Politics. International Organization. 2005 Jan;59(01).

112.

Hermann MG, Preston T, Korany B, Shaw TM. Who Leads Matters: The Effects of Powerful Individuals. International Studies Review. 2001 Sep;3(2):83–131.

113.

Kaarbo J. Prime Minister Leadership Styles in Foreign Policy Decision-Making: A Framework for Research. Political Psychology [Internet]. 1997;18(3):553–81. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3792101

114.

Hermann MG, Hermann CF. Who Makes Foreign Policy Decisions and How: An Empirical Inquiry. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1989;33(4):361–87. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600518

115.

Hermann MG, Preston T. Presidents, Advisers, and Foreign Policy: The Effect of Leadership Style on Executive Arrangements. Political Psychology [Internet]. 1994;15(1):75–96. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791440

116.

James P, Zhang E. Chinese Choices: A Poliheuristic Analysis of Foreign Policy Crises, 1950-1996. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2005 Feb 4;1(1):31–54.

117.

Mintz A. How Do Leaders Make Decisions?: A Poliheuristic Perspective. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2004 Feb 1;48(1):3–13.

118.

Goldgeier JM, Tetlock PE. Psychology and international relations theory. Annual Review of Political Science. 2001 Jun;4(1):67–92.

119.

Jervis R. Hypotheses on Misperception. World Politics [Internet]. 1968;20(3):454–79. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2009777

120.

Jervis R. Deterrence and Perception. International Security [Internet]. 1983;7(3):3–30. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538549

121.

George AL. The ‘Operational Code’: A Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1969;13(2):190–222. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3013944

122.

O’Neill B. Risk Aversion in International Relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 2001;45(4):617–40. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3096063

123.

Blanton SL. Images in Conflict: The Case of Ronald Reagan and El Salvador. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1996;40(1):23–44. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600930

124.

Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T, editors. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

125.

Hymans JEC. The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491412

126.

Hall TH. We will not Swallow This Bitter Fruit: Theorizing a Diplomacy of Anger. Security Studies. 2011 Oct;20(4):521–55.

127.

Holmes M. Believing This and Alieving That: Theorizing Affect and Intuitions in International Politics. International Studies Quarterly. 2015 May;n/a-n/a.

128.

Dyson SB. Cognitive Style and Foreign Policy: Margaret Thatcher’s Black-and-White Thinking. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique [Internet]. 2009;30(1):33–48. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20445174

129.

Jonathan Mercer. Emotional Beliefs. International Organization. 2010 Jan;64(01).

130.

Mercer J. Emotion and Strategy in the Korean War. International Organization. 2013 Apr;67(02):221–52.

131.

Hibbing JR. Ten Misconceptions Concerning Neurobiology and Politics. Perspectives on Politics. 2013 Jun;11(02):475–89.

132.

Holmes M. The Force of Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Mirror Neurons and the Problem of Intentions. International Organization. 2013 Oct;67(04):829–61.

133.

Horowitz MC, Stam AC. How Prior Military Experience Influences the Future Militarized Behavior of Leaders. International Organization. 2014;68(03):527–59.

134.

Rose McDermott. Political psychology in international relations. Vol. Series: Analytical perspectives on politics. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press; 2004.

135.

McDermott R. The Biological Bases for Aggressiveness and Nonaggressiveness in Presidents. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 Oct;10(4):313–27.

136.

Forsberg T. Crisis Decision-Making in Finland: Cognition, Institutions and Rationality. Cooperation and Conflict. 2006 Sep 1;41(3):235–60.

137.

Berejikian JD. Model Building with Prospect Theory: A Cognitive Approach to International Relations. Political Psychology [Internet]. 2002;23(4):759–86. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792366

138.

Robert M. Entman. Projections of power: framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy [Internet]. Vol. Series: Studies in communication, media, and public opinion. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press; 2004. Available from: https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=GlasgowUni&isbn=9780226210735

139.

Herman ES, Chomsky N. Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. Vol. Vintage original. London: Vintage; 1994.

140.

Robinson P, Goddard P, Parry K, Murray C, Taylor PM, Askews & Holts Library Services. Pockets of resistance: British news media, war and theory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq [Internet]. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2010. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=GlasgowUni&isbn=9781847794727

141.

Gribble R, Wessley S, Klein S, Alexander DA, Dandeker C, Fear NT. British Public Opinion after a Decade of War: Attitudes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Politics. 2015 Jun;35(2):128–50.

142.

Robinson P, Seib PM, Fröhlich R, editors. Routledge handbook of media, conflict and security. New York, NY: Routledge; 2016.

143.

Eytan G, Robinson P, Miklian J, Gabrielsen Jumbert M. Moving Media and Conflict Studies beyond the CNN Effect. Review of International Studies. 2016;

144.

Herring E, Robinson P. Report X Marks the Spot: The British Government’s Deceptive Dossier on Iraq and WMD. Political Science Quarterly. 2014 Dec;129(4):551–84.

145.

Hildebrandt T, Hillebrecht C, Holm PM, Pevehouse J. The Domestic Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2013 Jul;9(3):243–66.

146.

Dixon P. Britain’s ‘Vietnam Syndrome’? Public Opinion and British Military Intervention from Palestine to Yugoslavia. Review of International Studies [Internet]. 2000;26(1):99–121. Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097658

147.

Ole R. Holsti. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus Mershon Series: Research Programs and Debates. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1992;36(4):439–66. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600734

148.

Gilboa E. Global Television News and Foreign Policy: Debating the CNN Effect. International Studies Perspectives. 2005 Aug;6(3):325–41.

149.

Foyle DC. Leading the Public To War? The Influence of American Public Opinion on the Bush Administration’s Decision to go to War in Iraq. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2004 Sep 1;16(3):269–94.

150.

Sobel R. The impact of public opinion on U.S. foreign policy since Vietnam: constraining the colossus. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

151.

Bjereld U, Ekengren AM. Foreign Policy Dimensions: A Comparison Between the United States and Sweden. International Studies Quarterly. 1999 Sep;43(3):503–18.

152.

Hurwitz J, Peffley M, Seligson MA. Foreign Policy Belief Systems in Comparative Perspective: The United States and Costa Rica. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1993;37(3):245–70. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600808

153.

Baum MA. Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. 2002;96(1):91–109. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3117812

154.

Kull S, Ramsay C, Lewis E. Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly [Internet]. 2004;118(4):569–98. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30035697

155.

Foyle DC. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Elite Beliefs as a Mediating Variable. International Studies Quarterly. 1997 Mar;41(1):141–70.

156.

Kaufmann C. Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War. International Security [Internet]. 2004;29(1):5–48. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137546

157.

Gaubatz KT. Intervention and Intransitivity: Public Opinion, Social Choice, and the Use of Military Force Abroad. World Politics [Internet]. 1995;47(4):534–54. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2950701

158.

Gowa J. Politics at the Water’s Edge: Parties, Voters, and the Use of Force Abroad. International Organization [Internet]. 1998;52(2):307–24. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601277

159.

Herring E, Robinson P. Too Polemical or Too Critical? Chomsky on the Study of the News Media and US Foreign Policy. Review of International Studies [Internet]. 2003;29(4):553–68. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097876

160.

Hill KA. The Domestic Sources of Foreign Policymaking: Congressional Voting and American Mass Attitudes toward South Africa. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1993;37(2):195–214. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600768

161.

Hixson WL. Parting the curtain: propaganda, culture, and the Cold War, 1945-61. Houndmills: Macmillan Press; 1998.

162.

Jentleson BW. The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 1992;36(1):49–73. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600916

163.

Jentleson BW, Britton RL. Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force. The Journal of Conflict Resolution [Internet]. 1998;42(4):395–417. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/174436

164.

Marsh C, Fraser C. Public opinion and nuclear weapons. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan; 1989.

165.

Mazrui AA. Between the Crescent and the Star-Spangled Banner: American Muslims and US Foreign Policy. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) [Internet]. 1996;72(3):493–506. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2625553

166.

Houghton DP. Reinvigorating the Study of Foreign Policy Decision Making: Toward a Constructivist Approach. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2007 Jan;3(1):24–45.

167.

Hansen L. Security as practice: discourse analysis and the Bosnian war [Internet]. Vol. Series: New international relations. London: Routledge; 2006. Available from: http://GLA.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=200689

168.

Gaskarth J. Discourses and Ethics: The Social Construction of British Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2006 Oct;2(4):325–41.

169.

Campbell D, Ebooks Corporation Limited. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity [Internet]. Revised edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1998. Available from: http://GLA.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=310792

170.

Doty RL. Imperial encounters: the politics of representation in North-South relations. Vol. Series: Borderlines (Minneapolis, Minn.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1996.

171.

Sjöstedt R. The Discursive Origins of a Doctrine. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2007 Jul;3(3):233–54.

172.

Buzan B, Wæver O, de Wilde J. Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Pub; 1998.

173.

Larsen H. Foreign policy and discourse analysis: France, Britain, and Europe [Internet]. Vol. Series: Routledge advances in international relations and politics. London: Routledge/LSE; 1997. Available from: http://GLA.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1138282

174.

Farrell T. Constructivist Security Studies: Portrait of a Research Program. International Studies Review [Internet]. 2002;4(1):49–72. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186274

175.

Hopf T. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security [Internet]. 1998;23(1):171–200. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539267

176.

Finnemore M. The purpose of intervention: changing beliefs about the use of force. Vol. Series: Cornell studies in security affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2003.

177.

Finnemore M. National interests in international society. Vol. Series: Cornell studies in political economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press; 1996.

178.

Wehner LE, Thies CG. Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation: The Domestic Contestation of Roles. International Studies Review. 2014 Sep;16(3):411–36.

179.

Moravcsik A. ‘Is something rotten in the state of Denmark?’ Constructivism and European integration. Journal of European Public Policy. 1999 Jan;6(4):669–81.

180.

Checkel JT, Moravcsik A. A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies? European Union Politics. 2001 Jun 1;2(2):219–49.

181.

Duffield JS. Political Culture and State Behavior: Why Germany Confounds Neorealism. International Organization [Internet]. 1999;53(4):765–803. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601309

182.

Agathangelou AM, Ling LHM. Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 2004;48(3):517–38. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3693521

183.

Barnett M. Culture, Strategy and Foreign Policy Change: Israel’s Road to Oslo. European Journal of International Relations. 1999 Mar 1;5(1):5–36.

184.

Daddow O. Constructing a ‘great’ role for Britain in an age of austerity: Interpreting coalition foreign policy, 2010-2015. International Relations. 2015 Sep 1;29(3):303–18.

185.

Fisher K. Security, identity and British counterterrorism policy [Internet]. Vol. New security challenges series. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=GlasgowUni&isbn=9781137524225

186.

Goddard SE, Krebs RR. Rhetoric, Legitimation, and Grand Strategy. Security Studies. 2015 Jan 2;24(1):5–36.

187.

Jelena Subotić. Narrative, Ontological Security, and Foreign Policy Change. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2016;12(4):610–27.

188.

Bevir M, Daddow O. Interpreting foreign policy: National, comparative and regional studies. International Relations. 2015 Sep 1;29(3):273–87.

189.

Solomon T. The politics of subjectivity in American foreign policy discourses. Vol. Configurations: critical studies of world politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2015.

190.

McCourt DM. Britain and world power since 1945: constructing a nation’s role in international politics. Vol. Configurations. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press; 2014.

191.

Hayes J. Constructing national security: U.S. relations with China and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

192.

Krebs RR. Narrative and the making of US national security. Vol. Cambridge studies in international relations. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

193.

Kettell S. Dilemmas of Discourse: Legitimising Britain’s War on Terror. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations. 2013 May;15(2):263–79.

194.

Goddard SE. The Rhetoric of Appeasement: Hitler’s Legitimation and British Foreign Policy, 1938–39. Security Studies. 2015 Jan 2;24(1):95–130.

195.

Krebs RR. Tell Me a Story: FDR, Narrative, and the Making of the Second World War. Security Studies. 2015 Jan 2;24(1):131–70.

196.

Krebs RR. How Dominant Narratives Rise and Fall: Military Conflict, Politics, and the Cold War Consensus. International Organization. 2015;69(04):809–45.

197.

Krebs RR, Lobasz JK. Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq. Security Studies. 2007 Aug 24;16(3):409–51.

198.

de Orellana P. Struggles over identity in diplomacy: ‘Commie terrorists’ contra ‘imperialists’ in Western Sahara. International Relations. 2015 Dec 1;29(4):477–99.

199.

Ostermann F. The end of ambivalence and the triumph of pragmatism? Franco-British defence cooperation and European and Atlantic defence policy traditions. International Relations. 2015 Sep 1;29(3):334–47.

200.

Holland J. Selling the War on Terror: foreign policy discourses after 9/11. Vol. Series: Critical terrorism studies. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge; 2013.

201.

Schmidt BC, Williams MC. The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives Versus Realists. Security Studies. 2008 May 22;17(2):191–220.

202.

Jackson PT. Civilizing the enemy: German reconstruction and the invention of the West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2006.

203.

Nyman J. ‘Red Storm Ahead’: Securitisation of Energy in US-China Relations. Millennium - Journal of International Studies. 2014 Sep 1;43(1):43–65.

204.

Croft S. Culture, crisis and America’s War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

205.

Debrix F. Tabloid terror: war, culture, and geopolitics. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge; 2008.

206.

Jackson R. Writing the war on terrorism: language, politics, and counter-terrorism. Vol. Series: New approaches to conflict analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2005.

207.

Nabers D. Filling the Void of Meaning: Identity Construction in U.S. Foreign Policy After September 11, 2001. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2009 Apr;5(2):191–214.

208.

Reus-Smit C, Snidal D. The Oxford handbook of international relations [Internet]. Vol. The Oxford handbooks of political science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001

209.

Smith KE, Lights M. Ethics and foreign policy [Internet]. Vol. Series: LSE monographs in international studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Available from: http://GLA.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=202006

210.

Bulley D. The politics of ethical foreign policy: A responsibility to protect whom? European Journal of International Relations. 2010 Sep 1;16(3):441–61.

211.

Kennan GF. Morality and Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs [Internet]. 1985;64(2). Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290258825/fulltextPDF?accountid=14540

212.

Busby JW. Moral movements and foreign policy. Vol. Series: Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

213.

Lawler P. The Good State: In Praise of ‘Classical’ Internationalism. Review of International Studies [Internet]. 2005;31(3):427–49. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40072083

214.

Kuperman AJ. The Moral Hazard of Humanitarian Intervention: Lessons from the Balkans. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. 2008;52(1):49–80. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29734224

215.

Beitz CR. Political theory and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999.

216.

Walzer M. Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. 4th ed. New York: Basic Books; 2006.

217.

Abrahamsen R, Williams P. Ethics and Foreign Policy: the Antinomies of New Labour’s ‘Third Way’ in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Studies. 2001 Jun;49(2):249–64.

218.

Little R, Wickham-Jones M. New Labour’s foreign policy: a new moral crusade? Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2000.

219.

Fierke KM. Who is my neighbour? Memories of the Holocaust/al Nakba and a global ethic of care. European Journal of International Relations. 2014 Sep 1;20(3):787–809.

220.

Baehr PR, Castermans-Holleman MC. The role of human rights in foreign policy. Third edition. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2004.

221.

Buckler S. Dirty hands: the problem of political morality. Vol. Series: Avebury series in philosophy. Aldershot, Hants: Avebury; 1993.

222.

Campbell D. National deconstruction: violence, identity, and justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1998.

223.

Cole P. Philosophies of exclusion: liberal political theory and immigration. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2000.

224.

Benhabib S. The rights of others: aliens, residents and citizens. Vol. Series: The John Robert Seeley lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.

225.

Betts RK. The Delusion of Impartial Intervention. Foreign Affairs [Internet]. 73(6). Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1290286683/abstract/C39C5610F46A4868PQ/1?accountid=14540

226.

Beardsworth R. Cosmopolitanism and international relations theory. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2011.

227.

Weber C. Imagining America at war: morality, politics, and film. London, New York: Routledge; 2006.

228.

Baylis J, Smith S, Owens P. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

229.

Chollet D, Lindberg T. A moral core for U.S. foreign policy. Policy Review [Internet]. 2007;2007(2007). Available from: https://ezproxy.lib.gla.ac.uk/login?url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A172911420/AONE?u=glasuni&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=858d2035

230.

Mapel DR, Nardin T. Traditions of international ethics. Vol. Series: Cambridge studies in international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.