Foreign Policy Analysis Course

Course Philosophy

Course Development Philosophy

The course is designed according to Martin Zubko’s teaching philosophy, expressed in the principle that:
“A supreme principle of teaching is to ignite curiosity that leads to purposeful research, resulting in discoveries that bring meaning.” 

This approach informs the course structure, where intellectual curiosity serves as the starting point for research-driven learning. Through engagement with theoretical debates and independent investigation, students are encouraged to develop original insights and contribute to deeper understanding of international politics. 

“With each course, my aim has been to develop a research-driven intellectual workshop in which teaching is built around two complementary dimensions: mentoring and coaching. I recognise the limitations of my own knowledge in comparison with the expanding capabilities of artificial intelligence systems; however, the central purpose of my work lies elsewhere — in cultivating individuals who can navigate a complex and often chaotic information environment shaped by truth, misinformation, and partial truths.

The essential task is to develop students’ capacity for independent judgement: the ability to critically evaluate information, formulate meaningful questions, and produce rigorous analysis. Their own intellectual curiosity and judgement remain the primary sources of inquiry, enabling them to discover new perspectives, identify emerging patterns, and contribute original insights to the understanding of complex phenomena.”
— Martin Zubko

Core Principles

Three core principles guide this entire curriculum:

1. Multi-Causality – Foreign policy outcomes rarely result from a single cause. They emerge from the interaction of individuals, institutions, domestic politics, international structures, historical legacies, and evolving technological environments.

2. Analytical Pluralism – No single theoretical framework can fully explain foreign policy behaviour. Different approaches illuminate distinct causal mechanisms, possess different scope conditions, and should be evaluated according to their empirical support, explanatory power, and logical coherence.

3. Epistemological Reflexivity – Every analytical framework reflects the historical, cultural, and intellectual context in which it was developed. Analysts must therefore remain critically aware of the assumptions embedded within both the theories they employ and their own analytical perspectives.

Throughout the course, students are trained to distinguish correlation from causation, identify causal mechanisms, formulate and compare rival hypotheses, and evaluate competing explanations using transparent empirical evidence. The curriculum does not treat theories as competing orthodoxies. It presents them as complementary analytical tools whose usefulness depends on the research question, empirical context, and level of analysis.

As analysts, students are encouraged to ask two complementary questions throughout every case study:

1. What explains this foreign policy decision?

2. Why do I find this explanation persuasive rather than alternative explanations?

These questions encourage both empirical rigour and critical self-reflection, fostering an approach that is simultaneously explanatory and reflexive.

The curriculum integrates multiple levels of analysis by examining how leaders, bureaucracies, domestic political institutions, international structures, technological change, and postcolonial realities interact to shape foreign policy outcomes. Through a combination of theoretical engagement, analytical laboratories, comparative case studies, and close reading of primary policy documents, students develop the practical skills required to analyse complex foreign policy decisions across diverse political and regional contexts, without giving priority to any single theoretical tradition or geographical perspective.

Analytical Framework

Ultimately, the course equips students with a rigorous and policy-relevant framework for Foreign Policy Analysis. Guided by a five-step analytical framework emphasising (1) empirical clarity, (2) causal reasoning, (3) agential mapping, (4) comparative evaluation, and (5) critical reflexivity, students learn to produce theoretically informed, empirically grounded, and methodologically transparent assessments of contemporary foreign policy.

Throughout the course, this framework is applied systematically to a range of foreign policy cases, guiding students from empirical investigation and evidence assessment to causal explanation, theoretical evaluation, and critical reflection. The purpose is both to explain foreign policy outcomes and to examine the assumptions, limitations, and perspectives that shape competing explanations.

1. Establishing the Empirical Baseline: What happened?
   What was the foreign policy decision? What verifiable evidence establishes the timeline, key actors, decision-making processes, and material or diplomatic outcomes before interpretation begins? [Empirical Baseline]

2. Mapping Agency and Causation: Who made the decision and through what processes?
   At which level of analysis did the decision emerge — individual leadership, bureaucratic institutions, domestic political coalitions, or international/systemic pressures? Which actors, organisations, and decision-making processes contributed causally to the outcome? [Agential Mapping]

3. Applying Theoretical Explanations: How can the decision be explained?
   Which analytical framework — psychological, bureaucratic, domestic political, constructivist, systemic, or postcolonial — provides the strongest explanation? What assumptions about foreign policy decision-making does this framework make? [Theoretical Application]

4. Evaluating Analytical Limits: What remains unexplained?
   What actors, interests, structures, or historical dynamics does the chosen explanation overlook? How might an alternative theoretical approach or level of analysis reveal dimensions concealed by the initial framework? [Analytical Limitation]

5. Practising Reflexive Analysis: Whose perspective shapes the explanation?
   How might the decision appear from the perspective of a non-Western state, postcolonial actor, or Global South analyst? What alternative interpretations, historical experiences, or forms of knowledge challenge dominant explanations? [Reflexive Critique]

Course Content Structure

This 12-week course is organised around a multi-level analytical framework that moves from foundational questions of explanation and evidence, through individual and domestic sources of foreign policy, to ideational, technological, and systemic influences. The final modules integrate these perspectives by focusing on how foreign policy can be systematically analysed, compared, and evaluated.

MODULE I: Foundations of Foreign Policy Analysis

Week 1: What Is Foreign Policy Analysis?  

Week 2: How Do We Know? Methods, Evidence, and Explanation

MODULE II: The Actor – Individuals, Groups, and Domestic Politics

Week 3: Leaders, Cognition, and Perception  

Week 4: Bureaucratic Politics and Organisational Decision-Making  

Week 5: Domestic Politics, Regimes, and Public Opinion

MODULE III: Ideas, Identity, and Digital Statecraft

Week 6: Constructivism, Strategic Culture, and National Role Conceptions  

Week 7: Postcolonial, Decolonial, and Global South Perspectives

Week 8: Foreign Policy in the Digital Age – Cyber, Algorithms, and AI 

 
MODULE IV: Structures, Systems, and International Context

Week 9: Systemic Pressures and International Structures  

Week 10: Small States, Middle Powers, and Hedging

MODULE V: Reading and Evaluating Foreign Policy

Week 11: How to Read Foreign Policy

Week 12: Competing Explanations and Analytical Triangulation  

Integrated Learning Stages

Each week of this 12-week course is organised around three integrated learning stages designed to develop theoretical understanding, foreign policy analytical capability, and critical reflexivity.

1. Preparation: Engaging with Core Concepts and Debates
   Before each session, students engage with assigned readings, policy documents, and empirical materials to familiarise themselves with key concepts, theoretical frameworks, and ongoing debates. Preparation provides the foundation for informed discussion and analytical engagement.

2. Discussion-Based Lecture: Analysing Theories Through Debate and Application
   Class sessions combine theoretical explanation with structured discussion. Lectures are not treated as one-way knowledge transmission. Students critically examine competing frameworks, apply concepts to empirical cases, and evaluate alternative explanations through guided debate. 

3. Research Lab: Developing Analytical Skills Through Reflexive Inquiry
   The research lab provides practical training in Foreign Policy Analysis methods. Students work with empirical evidence, conduct comparative analysis, construct actor maps, evaluate causal explanations, and address reflexive questions about the assumptions, limits, and perspectives that shape their analyses.

Foundational Texts

• Hudson, Valerie M., and Benjamin S. Day. 2025. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. 4th ed. Bloomsbury Publishing.

• Morin, Jean-Frédéric, and Jonathan Paquin. 2018. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne, and Nicholas Kitchen, eds. 2024. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

• Varouxakis, Georgios. 2025. The West: The History of an Idea. Princeton University Press.

Research articles do not appear in the bibliography above. This is intentional. Each week, students are expected to identify a peer-reviewed article relevant to that week’s topic, bring it to the seminar, and share it with the group. The lecturer contributes selections alongside the class. This practice develops independent literature-searching habits, exposes the seminar to a wider range of scholarly perspectives than any fixed reading list could provide, and keeps the course in sustained contact with current debates in the field.

Learning Outcomes

1. Conduct multi-level and multi-causal foreign policy analysis
   Analyse foreign policy decisions by integrating individual psychology, bureaucratic dynamics, domestic politics, strategic culture, international structures, and postcolonial perspectives into coherent explanations. Students will be able to compare competing theoretical approaches and identify what each explains well and what it leaves unexplained.

2. Critically evaluate primary sources and apply appropriate analytical methods
   Interpret official foreign policy materials, including speeches, strategic documents, diplomatic communications, and defence-related publications, in order to identify decision-making processes, institutional tensions, strategic narratives, and gaps between rhetoric and practice. Students will apply relevant methodological tools, including process tracing, discourse analysis, operational code analysis, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques.

3. Practise epistemological reflexivity in foreign policy analysis
   Identify the historical, cultural, and geographical assumptions embedded within analytical frameworks and evaluate how these assumptions shape explanations of foreign policy. Students will critically examine Western-centric approaches as well as non-Western and decolonial perspectives, without treating any analytical tradition as inherently universal or privileged.

4. Produce theoretically informed and policy-relevant foreign policy assessments
   Develop professional-quality analyses structured around the five-step analytical framework of empirical clarity, causal reasoning, agential mapping, comparative evaluation, and critical reflexivity. Students will demonstrate the ability to produce evidence-based assessments and recognise how analytical choices and positionality influence interpretation.

Assessment

Graded Assessment Components

Assessment 1: Foreign Policy Document Analysis (35% | 2,500 words)
Select one official primary document (major speech, national security strategy, white paper, or strategic communiqué). Conduct a critical analysis of its content, context, and significance. Examine purpose, authorship, intended audience, institutional context, key assumptions, and the gap between stated commitments and observable outcomes. Apply at least one analytical method introduced in the course. 

Submission Deadline: End of Week 7.

Assessment 2: Capstone Research Paper (55% | 5,000–6,000 words)
Produce an independent research paper analysing a major foreign policy decision from the approved case list. Develop a theoretically informed explanation by engaging multiple perspectives, applying appropriate methods, and evaluating competing interpretations with empirical evidence. Demonstrate the ability to construct a coherent argument and incorporate critical perspectives on analytical assumptions.  

Submission Deadline: Sunday of Week 14 (Formal Assessment Period, following the conclusion of Week 12 teaching).

Assessment 3: Participation and Analytical Engagement (10% | Ongoing)
Participation is assessed throughout the semester based on the quality of students’ engagement with the analytical objectives of the course. Assessment considers contributions to Discussion-Based Lectures and Research Labs. Students are expected to demonstrate the ability to apply theoretical concepts to empirical cases, engage critically with different interpretations, use evidence effectively, and respond constructively to alternative arguments. Attendance is required. Marks are awarded for the quality of intellectual engagement.

Grading Scale (%) and Performance Standards

• 80–100: Exceptional
  Outstanding analytical ability, originality, and intellectual independence. The work develops a sophisticated, tightly integrated argument that combines theory, evidence, and method with exceptional precision. It critically evaluates competing explanations, exposes underlying assumptions and limitations, and produces insights that approach professional analytical standards.

• 70–79: Excellent
  Advanced analytical skills and strong theoretical understanding. The work presents a clear, well-supported argument and engages critically with relevant debates and alternative explanations. Minor limitations may remain in originality, depth, or full integration of perspectives.

• 60–69: Good
  Solid command of key concepts, literature, and analytical approaches. Theories are applied appropriately and the argument is coherent. Limitations typically appear in originality, critical depth, methodological sophistication, or engagement with competing interpretations.

• 50–59: Satisfactory
  Adequate understanding of core concepts and empirical material. The work engages with the course content but remains largely descriptive or summary-based, with limited analytical depth, theoretical application, or critical evaluation.

• 40–49: Marginal Pass
  Basic understanding of course requirements is present, but analysis is underdeveloped, heavily descriptive, and insufficiently supported by evidence or theoretical reasoning.

• Below 40: Fail
  Does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of key concepts, analytical approaches, or evidence. The work lacks a coherent argument and fails to meet minimum academic standards.

Submission, Formatting Requirements and Academic Integrity

• All written work must be submitted as a PDF file.

• Use 12-point Aptos or Arial font. Number all pages. On the first page include your name, student number, course name, assignment title, and word count. A separate cover page is not required.

• The stated word count is a guide. Stay within 10% above or below it. The word count includes the main text and in-text citations, but excludes the reference list, tables, figures, and appendices.

• Use the Chicago Author-Date citation style throughout. Examples: (Yergin 2020) or Yergin (2020) argues that… For direct quotations include the page number: (Yergin 2020, 47). Place the reference list at the end, organised alphabetically by surname. Footnotes may be used sparingly for substantive clarifications only; do not use them for routine citations.

• Formal policies regarding academic integrity and the use of AI tools vary by institution and will apply in full. Beyond these formal requirements lies a deeper educational principle: the purpose of assessment is not merely to demonstrate completion of tasks, but to develop genuine understanding, analytical capability, and intellectual independence. A qualification represents not only the work submitted, but the knowledge and skills that work is designed to cultivate. This course is built on meaningful engagement with scholarship, practitioners, and professional perspectives that extend beyond the formal syllabus. The value students gain depends on a shared commitment to curiosity, preparation, critical thinking, and responsible academic practice.

Detailed Module Descriptions

MODULE I: Foundations of Foreign Policy Analysis

Week 1: What Is Foreign Policy Analysis?  

Core Question
Why do states facing similar international conditions make different foreign policy choices?

Preparation
The origins of FPA; agency–structure debates; levels of analysis; the state as a contested rather than unitary actor.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Foreign Policy Analysis versus macro IR approaches; explaining variation through actors, institutions, and decision-making processes.

Research Lab
Comparing systemic and actor-centred explanations of the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal and mapping competing sources of explanation.

Additional Literature 

• George, Alexander L. 2005. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. United States Institute of Peace Press.

• Hassan, Oz. 2024. Why the European Union Failed in Afghanistan: Transatlantic Relations and the Return of the Taliban. Bristol University Press.

• Nincic, Miroslav, and Joseph Lepgold, eds. 2000. Being Useful: Policy Relevance and International Relations Theory. University of Michigan Press.

• Smith, Steve, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne, and Nicholas Kitchen, eds. 2024. Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

Week 2: How Do We Know? Methods, Evidence, and Explanation

Core Question
How can foreign policy analysts establish credible explanations?

Preparation
Evidence in social science; causal reasoning; process tracing; comparative methods; interpretive and positivist approaches.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How different methodological traditions define evidence, causation, and explanation in foreign policy research.

Research Lab
Constructing a causal timeline from diplomatic cables, media reports, and intelligence fragments while evaluating evidence selection and limitations.

Additional Literature 

• Bardach, Eugene, and Eric M. Patashnik. 2024. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. 7th ed. CQ Press.

• Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2019. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. 2nd ed. University of Michigan Press.

• Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T. Checkel, eds. 2015. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge University Press.

• Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 2025. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 7th ed. Taylor & Francis.

MODULE II: The Actor – Individuals, Groups, and Domestic Politics

Week 3: Leaders, Cognition, and Perception  

Core Question
How do leaders’ beliefs, perceptions, and cognitive biases influence foreign policy decisions?

Preparation
Operational codes, Leadership Trait Analysis, prospect theory, and psychological approaches to decision-making.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How leaders interpret uncertainty, risk, and international pressures across different political contexts.

Research Lab
Applying operational code analysis to political speeches and evaluating the cultural limits of psychological explanations.

Additional Literature 

• Allison, Graham T. 2017. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

• He, Kai, and Huiyun Feng. 2012. Prospect Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis in the Asia Pacific: Rational Leaders and Risky Behavior. Routledge.

• Özdamar, Özgür, and Sercan Canbolat. 2025. Leaders in the Middle East and North Africa: How Ideology Shapes Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press.

• Post, Jerrold M. 2004. Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior. Cornell University Press.

• Rodman, Peter W. 2015. Presidential Command: Power, Leadership, and the Making of Foreign Policy from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. Knopf.

Week 4: Bureaucratic Politics and Organisational Decision-Making  

Core Question
How do institutions, organisational routines, and internal competition shape foreign policy?

Preparation
Bureaucratic Politics Model, Organisational Process Model, groupthink, intelligence, and secrecy dynamics.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How governments produce foreign policy through bargaining, institutional interests, and organisational constraints.

Research Lab
Analysing the 2003 Iraq invasion and South China Sea policies through bureaucratic and organisational perspectives.

Additional Literature 

• ʿAllāwī, ʿAlī A. 2007. The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace. Yale University Press.

• Allison, Graham T., Robert D. Blackwill, and Ali Wyne, eds. 2013. Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World. MIT Press.

• Elleman, Bruce A., and Warren V. Pratt. 2025. China’s Naval Operations in the South China Sea: Evaluating Legal, Strategic, and Military Factors. Routledge.

• Halperin, Morton H., Arnold Kanter, and Priscilla Clapp. 2006. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. 2nd ed. Brookings Institution Press.

• Jost, Thomas. 2024. Bureaucracies at War: The Institutional Origins of Miscalculation. Cambridge University Press.

• Vogel, Ezra F., and Xiaoping Deng. 2013. Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Week 5: Domestic Politics, Regimes, and Public Opinion  

Core Question
How do domestic political forces influence foreign policy choices?

Preparation
Two-level games, regime legitimacy, media framing, electoral incentives, and domestic coalitions.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How different political systems translate social pressures and domestic interests into foreign policy strategies.

Research Lab
Conducting comparative media analysis of a trade dispute and assessing how domestic legitimacy shapes external behaviour.

Additional Literature 

• Bernays, Edward. 2004. Propaganda. Ig Publishing.

• Evans, Peter B., Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam, eds. 1993. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. University of California Press.

• Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. 2002. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Knopf Doubleday.

• Le Bon, Gustave. 2002. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Dover Publications.

• Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds. 2013. The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press.

MODULE III: Ideas, Identity, and Digital Statecraft

Week 6: Constructivism, Strategic Culture, and National Role Conceptions  

Core Question
How do identities, historical narratives, and national roles shape foreign policy interests?

Preparation
Social constructivism, strategic culture, norms, and National Role Conceptions.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How states construct meanings of themselves and their place in international politics.

Research Lab
Mapping strategic culture through defence documents and analysing how national narratives influence policy choices.

Additional Literature 

• Johnston, Alastair Iain. 1998. Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton University Press.

• Kartchner, Kerry M., B. D. Bowen, and Jeffrey L. Johnson. 2024. Routledge Handbook of Strategic Culture. Routledge.

• Katzenstein, Peter J., and Social Science Research Council, eds. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Columbia University Press.

• McCourt, David M. 2022. The New Constructivism in International Relations Theory. Bristol University Press.

• Strycharz, Dorota. 2022. Role Theory and Russian Foreign Policy: Rolling Changes in National Role Conceptions. Routledge.

Week 7: Postcolonial, Decolonial, and Global South Perspectives

Core Question
How do historical power relations shape whose knowledge and interests define foreign policy analysis?

Preparation
Global IR, coloniality of power, dependency perspectives, and alternative approaches to international order.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How postcolonial and Global South perspectives challenge assumptions embedded in mainstream foreign policy theories.

Research Lab
Reconstructing a conventional security assessment from a Global South perspective and examining alternative interpretations of power and agency.

Additional Literature 

• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2019. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at Its Centenary. Cambridge University Press.

• Beah, Ishmael. 2008. A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. Sarah Crichton Books.

• Braveboy-Wagner, Jacqueline Anne. 2003. The Foreign Policies of the Global South: Rethinking Conceptual Frameworks. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

• Green, Duncan, and Laura Luehrmann. 2022. Comparative Politics of the Global South: Linking Concepts and Cases. 5th ed. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

• Williams, Howard L., and Chris Death. 2017. Global Justice: The Basics. Routledge.

Week 8: Foreign Policy in the Digital Age – Cyber, Algorithms, and AI  

Core Question
How does digital transformation reshape foreign policy instruments and strategic competition?

Preparation
Cyber statecraft, algorithmic influence, data sovereignty, technological competition, and digital power.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How emerging technologies create new forms of influence, vulnerability, and geopolitical competition.

Research Lab
Tracking a digital influence campaign through OSINT methods and assessing the changing relationship between technology and state power.

Additional Literature 

• Dunn Cavelty, Myriam. 2024. The Politics of Cyber-Security. Routledge.

• Greenberg, Andy. 2019. Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin’s Most Dangerous Hackers. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

• Kaplan, Fred M. 2016. Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. Simon & Schuster.

• Lindsay, Jon R. 2025. Age of Deception: Cybersecurity as Secret Statecraft. Cornell University Press.

• Maschmeyer, Lennart. 2024. Subversion: From Covert Operations to Cyber Conflict. Oxford University Press.

• Radvanovsky, Robert, and Allan McDougall. 2024. Critical Infrastructure: Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. Routledge.

• Smeets, Max. 2022. No Shortcuts: Why States Struggle to Develop a Military Cyber-Force. Oxford University Press.

• Zetter, Kim. 2014. Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon. Crown Publishers.

MODULE IV: Structures, Systems, and International Context

Week 9: Systemic Pressures and International Structures  

Core Question
How do international structures constrain and enable foreign policy choices?

Preparation
Structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, international regimes, and geoeconomic competition.

Discussion-Based Lecture
The relationship between material power, institutions, and state behaviour.

Research Lab
Comparing realist and liberal explanations of NATO enlargement, Indo-Pacific strategies, or climate diplomacy.

Additional Literature 

• Acharya, Amitav. 2025. From Southeast Asia to Indo-Pacific: Culture, Identity, and the Return to Geopolitics. Penguin Books.

• Apps, Peter. 2024. Deterring Armageddon: A Biography of NATO. Wildfire.

• Keohane, Robert O. 2005. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.

• Mearsheimer, John J. 2014. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton.

Week 10: Small States, Middle Powers, and Hedging

Core Question
How do states with limited power navigate competition among stronger actors?

Preparation
Strategic autonomy, hedging, balancing, bandwagoning, and niche diplomacy.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How smaller and middle powers exercise agency through adaptation, coalition-building, and strategic flexibility.

Research Lab
Assessing a state’s hedging strategy through defence policies, diplomatic behaviour, and economic relationships.

Additional Literature 

• Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Michael A. T. Kenney, eds. 2023. Great Power Competition and Middle Power Strategies: Economic Statecraft in the Asia-Pacific Region. Springer Nature.

• Baldacchino, Godfrey, and Anders Wivel. 2020. Handbook on the Politics of Small States. Edward Elgar Publishing.

• Naṣr, Wali R. 2025. Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History. Princeton University Press.

• Short, John R. 2025. Hedging and Conflict in the South China Sea. Routledge.

• Wivel, Anders, and T. V. Paul, eds. 2019. International Institutions and Power Politics: Bridging the Divide. Georgetown University Press.

MODULE V: Reading and Evaluating Foreign Policy

Week 11: How to Read Foreign Policy

Core Question
How can analysts interpret official foreign policy texts beyond their stated objectives?

Preparation
Policy documents, strategic narratives, discourse analysis, and reading rhetoric alongside material capability.

Discussion-Based Lecture
How foreign policy texts communicate interests, identities, assumptions, and strategic priorities.

Research Lab
Conducting a document analysis of a national security strategy or major foreign policy statement.

Additional Literature 

• Balzac, Honoré de. 2014. The Human Comedy: Selected Stories. Edited by Peter Brooks. Translated by Linda Asher, Carol Cosman, and Jordan Stump. New York Review Books.

• Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities & Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.

• Krebs, Ronald R. 2015. Narrative and the Making of US National Security. Cambridge University Press.

• Lüdemann, Susanne. 2014. Politics of Deconstruction: A New Introduction to Jacques Derrida. Stanford University Press.

• Willaschek, Marcus. 2025. Kant: A Revolution in Thinking. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

• Žižek, Slavoj. 2002. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan Through Popular Culture. MIT Press.

Week 12: Competing Explanations and Analytical Triangulation  

Core Question
How can analysts evaluate competing explanations of major foreign policy decisions?

Preparation
Reviewing psychological, bureaucratic, domestic, constructivist, systemic, and postcolonial approaches.

Discussion-Based Lecture
Comparing analytical perspectives and assessing their explanatory strengths and limitations.

Research Lab
Developing an integrated causal explanation of a contemporary foreign policy decision through analytical triangulation.

Additional Literature 

• Allison, Graham T., and Philip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd ed. Longman.

• Bush, George W. 2010. Decision Points. Crown Publishers.

• Freedman, Lawrence. 2013. Strategy: A History. Oxford University Press.

• Gaddis, John Lewis. 2018. On Grand Strategy. Penguin Press.

• Gvosdev, Nikolas K., Jessica D. Blankshain, and David A. Cooper. 2019. Decision-Making in American Foreign Policy: Translating Theory into Practice. Cambridge University Press.

• Seurat, Leïla. 2022. The Foreign Policy of Hamas: Ideology, Decision Making and Political Supremacy. I.B. Tauris.

• Smith, H. J. 2021. Realism and Idealism in Foreign Policy Decision Making. Lexington Books.

• Walzer, Michael. 2007. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 4th ed. Basic Books.

Office Hours and Consultation 

I welcome students to discuss course material, assessment questions, research ideas, or analytical challenges during consultation hours. To ensure that all requests are received and can be scheduled appropriately, please use the contact form provided for booking consultations.

I will respond with available times and confirmation of the meeting arrangement.

*** This course is designed to be adaptable across different higher education contexts. The weekly structure, assessment components, and reading requirements can be adjusted to meet the needs of particular institutions, programmes, or individual teaching contexts, and can be scaled appropriately for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. While the course’s analytical framework and intellectual objectives remain consistent, the structure presented here should be understood as a flexible model rather than a fixed template.

Updated – June 2026

I have made every effort to ensure the accuracy and coherence of this course design, but if you identify any errors, omissions, or areas for improvement, I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Academic work is always strengthened through careful review and constructive engagement. Additionally, if you are aware of any outstanding publications that could further enrich the course, I would welcome your recommendations.

Contact Form