Steven E. Lobell

Bio: Steven E. Lobell is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Foreign policy analysis & Offensive realism. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 77 citations.

Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy: Threat assessment, the state, and foreign policy: a neoclassical realist model

Abstract: How do states perceive international threats? Which domestic actors are the most important in threat definition? What happens when domestic actors and interests disagree on the nature of threats? As we state in chapter 1, these are central questions to the neoclassical realist agenda and require a theory of the state to answer. In this chapter I will develop a neoclassical realist theory of threat assessment to fill this gap and illustrate it with reference to the British experience between the two world wars. Neorealist theories are theories of international outcomes. They highlight the role of polarity and international structure, black box the state, and focus on shifts in aggregate military power or threat. Debates include whether bipolar or multipolar distributions of power are more war-prone; whether anarchy encourages states to maximize relative power or security; whether equal or unequal distributions of power contribute to war; and the prevalence of buck-passing or balancing against threats. Proponents of balance of power theory and balance of threat theory would argue that prior to World War I Britain balanced against the rising power (or threat) of Wilhelmine Germany in the form of the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale, the Triple Entente, and the naval arms buildup. Granted, prior to 1914, balancing may not have happened in an optimal fashion. Balance of power theory and balance of threat theory, at least in their current forms, predict a general tendency toward balancing and do not expect an efficient or quick balancing process under all circumstances.

국제정치이론 = Theory of international politics

Abstract: Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and de‹ciency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself the enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency. (Ibn al-Haytham)1

A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR Theory

Abstract: Over the last 25 years, there has been a noteworthy turn across major International Relations (IR) theories to include domestic politics and decision-making factors. Neoclassical realism and variants of liberalism and constructivism, for example, have incorporated state motives, perceptions, domestic political institutions, public opinion, and political culture. These theoretical developments, however, have largely ignored decades of research in foreign policy analysis (FPA) examining how domestic political and decision-making factors affect actors’ choices and policies. This continues the historical disconnect between FPA and “mainstream” IR, resulting in contemporary IR theories that are considerably underdeveloped. This article revisits the reasons for this separation and demonstrates the gaps between IR theory and FPA research. I argue that a distinct FPA perspective, one that is psychologically-oriented and agent-based, can serve as a complement, a competitor, and an integrating crucible for the cross-theoretical turn toward domestic politics and decision making in IR theory.

When elites fight: elites and the politics of U.S.military interventions in internal conflicts

Abstract: Military intervention in internal conflicts represents a recurrent practice in international history. This thesis provides a theoretical framework for the study of the political and sociological processes that lead political elites to militarily intervene in internal conflicts. Following the renewed interest in political elites both in Sociology and International Relations, the thesis draws on Elite Theory to address the dual nature of political elites as both domestic and international actors. In doing so, it develops a framework for the study of military intervention centred on political elites that overcomes the limits of existing contributions on the subject. In particular, the thesis highlights how interventionary policies are shaped by three overlapping causal antecedents: elites’ contending ideological claims; elites’ struggle for both domestic and international power; and the relationship established by the intervener’s elite with elite and counter- elite groups in the target state. The thesis tests the plausibility of the proposed framework by examining US decisions in three cases: US intervention in the Cuban War of Independence (1898-1902); US intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918- 1920); and US non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). This analysis highlights three elements. First, ideological considerations set significant limits to US cooperation with leaders in the target country despite the strategic rationale for cooperation against common enemies. Second, the interplay between international and domestic political considerations represented a fundamental ‘push factor’, shaping the objectives US elites sought. Third, foreign elite groups played a crucial role in ‘pulling’ US interventions, both by representing local allies instrumental to Washington’s objectives and by directly accessing and influencing US decision-making processes. For the same reasons, the lack of these push and pull factors are key to explaining US non-intervention in the Spanish case. Overall, the thesis offers a twofold contribution to the study of military intervention. First, it explores how military intervention permits decision- makers to affect the ‘circulation of elites’ in both their own societies and in other societies. Second, it indicates how military intervention affects the international system by altering ideological homogeneity, international alliances and hierarchical relations between elites.

Drivers of strategic contestation: The case of South America

Abstract: This article analyzes what the drivers of contestation of secondary powers vis-a-vis the regional power are, differentiating therein between structural, historical, behavioural and domestic such drivers. We argue that in regions characterized by relative stability where major interstate violent conflicts are unlikely, as is the case in South America, secondary powers rely mainly on soft-balancing mechanisms vis-a-vis the regional power. Whereas Brazil’s foreign policy behaviour is key to South American secondary powers being induced to contest the country’s powerhood, the choices that the foreign policy elites of those secondary powers make regarding what the specific expression of soft balancing is to be are influenced by certain domestic groups. Empirical examples are given of how Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela as secondary powers unfold these domestic drivers, which shape their different ways of soft balancing Brazil. The article thus explains why some secondary powers rely more on institutional binding, others on economic statecraft, or buffering, while others contest by offering and building alternative leadership proposals.

An analysis of identity-based and security-oriented Russian foreign policy in relation to Syria

Abstract: The civil war in Syria has become a culmination of the Arab Spring, which transformed into a complex international conflict, involving many states not only from the Middle East region, but also Russia, the US, and some EU states. From the beginning of the civil war in Syria, Russia played the key role in the conflict, starting from serving as a mediator of the conflict, and ending with active military actions initiated in 2015. Intensive discussion, and sometimes a rather negative discourse developed over Russian foreign policy in relation to Syria, which shaped a demand in an in-depth analysis of reasons behind Russian foreign policy decisions. Apart from historically strong ties with Syria, geopolitical and economic interests between two states still matter. At the same time it seems that in regards to Syria, Russian foreign policy has been mainly security-oriented, and simultaneously identity-based. A primary contribution of this thesis is offered by an application of a theoretical synthesis of Neoclassic Realism and Constructivism for the Russian foreign policy analysis. It is argued that Neoclassic Realism provides a theoretical basis for explaining security-oriented Russian foreign policy in Syria, while Constructivist theory supports the argument that Russian foreign policy in Syria is also identity-based. In case of Syria, domestic factors form an operational environment of Russian foreign policy-making. To Russia, the Syrian stability is seen as vital to the stability in the Middle East, and consequently to the Russia’s national security and territorial integrity. In particular, Russia is concerned about the rise of ‘Religious Extremism’ in the Middle East, because this development could potentially give an impulse to further political opposition and intensify insurgencies in the Russian Muslim-populated regions. Apart from that, Russian foreign policy in Syria is also motivated by the desire to sustain ‘the Great Power’ status by playing the key role in the Syrian crisis. This thesis is dedicated to the analysis of these developments, as well as their effects on Russian foreign policy in relation to Syria.