Swiss Foreign Policy

Foundations and Possibilities

Magdalena Bernath, Laurent Goetschel, Daniel Schwarz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781134276110
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Governo americano

Swiss Foreign Policy provides in-depth insights into the procedures and constraints of Swiss foreign policy, answering questions such as: * Why is Switzerland not a member of the European Union?
* What are the implications of staying apart and how important is neutrality in today's Europe?
* What are the implications of federalism and direct democracy on foreign policy?
* How should conflicting interests in foreign policy decision-making be dealt with? The book is essential reading to all those interested in foreign policy analysis, the relationship between democracy and international relations, the significance of being a small state in contemporary Europe and the specificities of the Swiss political system.

Part I
Theoretical bases

1 Foreign policy and foreign policy analysis

Chapter 1 presents basic political science terminology and concepts necessary for understanding foreign policy and foreign policy analysis. The first section discusses special characteristics of the policy field. Foreign policy serves to preserve the interests of the nation state abroad, thus forming a bridge between the national and international systems. Since national foreign relations are closely linked to sovereignty, national interest and power, we explain the meaning of these terms within the framework of foreign policy. The second part of the chapter addresses levels of analysis and theoretical assumptions – the most important factors to be considered when analysing foreign policy.

1.1 Foreign policy

What does foreign policy embrace and how does it differ from other policy areas? Seidelmann defines foreign policy as the means through which a society in a sovereign nation-state pursues and enforces its interests.¹ This assumes statehood, the intent and ability to determine the state’s interests and a relationship with the countries surrounding the nation. A country’s foreign relations include not only national foreign policy, but also policy areas such as security, economy and culture, and arenas such as tourism. As both a process (politics) and output (policy), foreign policy is the link between activities inside a state and the world outside.²

Multinational groups, international and non-governmental organisations do not conduct foreign policy, even if they seek to influence it and participate in conceiving and/or implementing it. Yet these non-governmental actors have assumed a greater role, thanks to increased international involvement and globalisation: international and supranational organisations, trans-national unions, multinational enterprises, and NGOs defy a nation-state’s call for sovereignty in defining its foreign policy.³

Foreign policy displays specific characteristics that distinguish it from other political sectors. When addressing political conflicts, the international system is not subject to intra-national (i.e. domestic) rules. Numerous regulations shape inner-state life, including social contracts, a monopoly on force,⁴ sanctioned regulatory mechanisms, and hierarchies of authority. Thanks to the international system’s lesser degree of organisation and integration, fewer restrictions limit foreign policy.⁵ This has been reflected in the use of military force during emergencies.⁶

Among their other interests, states seek to safeguard their independence. This link between foreign policy and a state’s very existence has, in the past, led to the elevation of foreign policy, to it being regarded as superior, as high politics. The primacy of foreign policy is the core element of the realist school of thought. It follows that foreign policy can be conducted effectively only if it appears both unified and coherent, and able to react promptly if necessary. In keeping with the realist view, domestic debate over the power and influence of political parties should affect foreign policy less than other areas of politics.

This explains why foreign policy has remained the preserve of the executive much more than other policy areas.⁷ The monarchy could withhold foreign policy (along with defence policy) from the parliamentary supremacy of citizens.⁸ This outlook led to a reining in of parliamentary influence in practically all Western European states: ‘Foreign policy and defence were traditionally considered matters outside and above the partisan domestic debate: directly linked to the preservation of sovereignty, and therefore to be entrusted to the executive.’⁹

1.1.1 Sovereignty

In terms of international law, the term sovereignty is closely linked to the existence of nation states.¹⁰ Morgenthau defines sovereignty as ‘the supreme legal authority of the nation to give and enforce law within a certain territory and, in consequence, independence from the authority of any other nation and equality with it under international law’¹¹ (emphasis by the authors).

Sovereignty should be understood as supremacy achieved by the definition and application of legal standards within a specific territory.¹² This supremacy must be applied and recognised, but it has never been absolute. Rather, since its modern definition linking it to the nation-state, it has been integrated within a network of international standards and treaties.¹³

Nor does a state need to be equally sovereign in all spheres:¹⁴ Internal sovereignty corresponds to the supremacy of a state within its own territory, for instance, in the legislative or law-and-order realm. External sovereignty addresses independence and equality, but lays no claim to international supremacy. It involves protection from intervention, equal treatment with regard to international law, and an independent foreign policy. On the one hand, foreign policy is an expression of sovereignty. On the other, it serves to help a country maintain its sovereignty.

1.1.2 Interest

‘Interest’, alongside ‘power’ (see below), is the most frequently used term in political science.¹⁵ Power and ‘national interest’ form the key concepts of the realist school. National interest is equated with the country’s interests, with the preferences of its citizenry and with the general welfare. However, one cannot claim that the national interest of any state purely reflects the sum of its citizens’ interests.¹⁶ In fact, both international and domestic policies are shaped by the struggle between conflicting interests and the power of one subgroup’s interests over those of another.

The interests of a state are, thus, neither given nor constant. Politicians appeal to the national interest to maintain domestic support and to justify actions abroad. And so it is possible for one party to call for increased cooperation with the outside world while another speaks out for Switzerland remaining isolationist – both of them in the so-called national interest.

Foreign policy analysis must therefore direct its attention to the following three questions:¹⁷ which interests hide behind the so-called national interest?, who defines the national interest?, and what means are used to pursue the national interest? According to Albrecht, when looking at a community’s foreign policy, these three questions form the core concern for political science, as we seek to create legitimacy and acceptance for our particular interests by appealing to the ‘national interest’.¹⁸

1.1.3 Power

Generally defined, power is the ability to bring about intended results. What the norm represents for jurisprudence, and utility for economics, the concept of power represents for political science.¹⁹ The formation, distribution and exercise of power form the fundamental basis of political processes, according to Lasswell.²⁰ Power defines the interest categories in which statesmen think, Morgenthau maintains.²¹

Power consists of both positive and negative components. We understand positive power to be the ability to influence third parties in the desired way. Relying on Max Weber’s classical political science definition, this means one actor in a social relationship using his or her position – despite resistance – to carry out his or her will.²² We understand negative power to mean the ability to protect oneself from a third party’s influence. Or, to quote another doyen of the discipline, it means the ability not to have to learn anything.²³ Singer also refers to this sort of power as autonomy.²⁴ Hence, a state’s foreign policy power arises both from its influence on its own environment and on its degree of autonomy toward the international environment.

Effective influence and autonomy depend on how the interests of a state relate to those of its neighbouring states, and on how its environment is designed institutionally.²⁵ Ultimately, a state’s power is determined by the way it perceives and judges its possibilities.²⁶ These depend upon context. Certain power resources are effective only under specific conditions. Take, for example, military and economic power. If we consider the desired end, the final resort to military power makes sense mainly in a military context, while use of economic power is meaningful only in an economic one.

The expressions ‘negotiation power’ and ‘norm-based power’ are used somewhat less frequently.²⁷ Negotiation power refers particularly to international organisations and policy networks, while norm-based power is most effective when it is based on established conventions, such as in the human rights sphere.²⁸ Power resources cannot be transferred at will. A great deal will be ‘lost in the translation’.²⁹

1.2 Foreign policy analysis

Foreign policy research seeks to contribute to the understanding of international relations by explaining foreign policy decision-making processes.³⁰ The various approaches differ in their levels of analysis, theoretical assumptions and methodology.

Foreign policy decision-making can be studied at the international or systemic level, at the national level, and at the level of individual decision-makers or small groups. Systemic approaches consider the state’s position in the international setting, while domestic approaches focus on the nation state’s society, culture and political institutions. An individual approach would centre on the personal or psychological characteristics of national leaders.³¹

When looking at theoretical and methodological differences, three categories emerge.³² The first and largest category comprises approaches that assume rational, goal-oriented, and purposeful action by individual or collective actors. These include the various angles of the realist school, game theory, and interdependence and regime theory (see below). The second category explains foreign policy behaviour with social, political, or organisational conditions that form the general framework for decision-making (whether at the national or international level ). This group includes studies by Allison³³ on the Cuba crisis and investigations by Deutsch and Czempiel.³⁴ A third category operates from the psychological perspective – looking at patterns of individual and collective perception and attitude, for example. These rely on analysis of perception patterns and images³⁵ and try to categorise ‘cognitive maps’ of attitudes.³⁶

One’s theoretical approach affects how one sees the relationship between the domestic and foreign policy variables that explain foreign policy behaviour. In the history of diplomacy from the nineteenth century until the First World War, for example, strategy was the crucial consideration, stressing the primary role of power in international relations. Accordingly, external change, not internal, determined changes in outcomes. The basic assumption was that states’ domestic features were static (at least in the short term).³⁷ This outlook peaked in the demand for foreign policy’s primacy.

The German historian Eckart Kehr represented the thesis opposing the primacy of domestic policy.³⁸ Based on studies of the domestic and societal fundamentals of German foreign policy at the end of the nineteenth century, he showed how often domestic policy considerations determined foreign policy decisions.³⁹

The various approaches of foreign policy analysis are anchored in the main theories of international relations, which are realism and neo-realism, interdependence theory, constructivism, neo-classical realism, and regime theory.⁴⁰ Based on experiences from the Second World War, ‘realism’ developed as the first school of international relations.⁴¹ (Neo-)Realists explain foreign policy behaviour with refer...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I: Theoretical Bases
• Part II: Institutions and Decision-Making Processes
• Part III: Policy Fields
• Conclusions
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Appendix