What Is Foreign Policy?
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 2 days ago
- 22 min read
Introduction
Foreign policy is the set of official objectives, decisions, commitments, and actions through which a state manages its relations with the outside world. Asking what is foreign policy requires more than identifying what governments say they want. Foreign policy is expressed through diplomatic positions, economic measures, security commitments, treaty practice, military choices, participation in international institutions, and sustained patterns of external conduct. Although states remain central to its study and practice, some scholarship also applies the concept to sufficiently autonomous political actors beyond the state, particularly the European Union (Hill, 2016).
Foreign policy is not synonymous with diplomacy. Diplomacy is one of the principal means through which external policy is pursued: governments communicate, negotiate, represent interests, manage disputes, signal intentions, and seek agreements through diplomatic channels. Foreign policy is broader because it also encompasses economic statecraft, security policy, military instruments, alliances, public diplomacy, and other forms of external action (Hill, 2016).
It is also distinct from international relations as a field of study. International Relations examines a much wider range of interactions involving states, international organizations, firms, social movements, transnational networks, and individuals. Foreign policy focuses more narrowly on purposeful external conduct and on the political processes through which external objectives are formulated, selected, and implemented.
Those objectives are often described through the language of the national interest, but national interest is not a fixed or self-defining category. Security, territorial protection, economic prosperity, access to markets and resources, international influence, status, ideological commitments, and the promotion of particular values may all become foreign-policy goals. Governments must decide which interests deserve priority, what costs are acceptable, and which objectives can realistically be pursued at the same time.
These choices are shaped by more than conditions outside the state. Political leaders, foreign ministries, defense and intelligence institutions, legislatures, parties, economic interests, public opinion, and administrative structures can all affect the formulation and implementation of policy. A central contribution of Foreign Policy Analysis has been to challenge the assumption that states always behave as unitary actors making perfectly rational choices. Decision makers operate with incomplete information, institutional constraints, competing preferences, and limited time, while bureaucratic routines and political pressures can shape the options available to them (Hill, 2016).
Foreign policy also depends on the relationship between objectives and instruments. Diplomacy, economic incentives, sanctions, military power, alliances, development assistance, public diplomacy, and participation in international institutions are means through which governments attempt to influence external outcomes. Their effectiveness depends on context, credibility, available capabilities, the reactions of other actors, and the political costs of implementation.
Possessing substantial resources does not guarantee foreign-policy success. Military or economic power must be converted into influence, and other actors retain the ability to resist, adapt, bargain, or respond in unexpected ways. Implementation can consequently produce outcomes different from those originally intended, making foreign policy a continuing process of choice, adjustment, and reassessment rather than a single decision followed by predictable results.
Foreign policy operates within an international legal order as well. Governments retain broad discretion in choosing external priorities, but political preference does not create unlimited freedom over the means used to pursue them. Treaty obligations, customary international law, the United Nations Charter, and specialized international regimes may authorize, restrict, or prohibit particular forms of conduct (Klabbers, 2024). Distinguishing political objectives, strategic effectiveness, and legal permissibility is essential to understanding how foreign policy operates in practice.
1. What Is Foreign Policy? Definition and Scope
Foreign policy concerns the official external objectives and conduct of a political actor, usually a state. It encompasses the positions governments adopt, the commitments they make, the relationships they maintain, and the actions through which they seek to influence conditions beyond their borders. Hill treats foreign policy as the totality of an independent political actor’s official external relations while allowing that such an actor need not always be a sovereign state (Hill, 2016).
Policy is broader than a collection of diplomatic statements or individual decisions. Governments make numerous choices with international consequences, but analysts ordinarily look for some connection among them: priorities maintained over time, alliances preserved or abandoned, negotiating positions defended, resources committed, and responses to recurring external problems.
That does not imply perfect coherence. Foreign policy may emerge incrementally rather than through a single written strategy. Different agencies can pursue partially competing priorities, political leaders can revise objectives, and practice may depart from declared principles. A recognizable foreign policy can consequently contain ambiguity, inconsistency, and change.
1.1 Policy, Decisions, and External Conduct
A foreign-policy decision concerns a specific choice in external affairs. A government might recognize another government, impose sanctions, enter negotiations, join an international agreement, deploy military forces, or decline to participate in a proposed initiative. Foreign policy exists at a broader level because it concerns the pattern created by such choices and the direction they establish over time.
Official declarations remain important evidence. Speeches, strategies, communiqués, diplomatic statements, and government programs can identify objectives and indicate how leaders understand a particular relationship or problem. They cannot, however, be treated as complete descriptions of policy. Resource allocation, implementation, repeated conduct, and the treatment of competing priorities may reveal a different hierarchy of interests.
Inaction can also have foreign-policy significance. A deliberate decision not to recognize an entity, impose sanctions, join an alliance, or respond militarily can express a substantive position. Foreign Policy Analysis nevertheless distinguishes deliberate restraint from incapacity, bureaucratic delay, political paralysis, or simple neglect. The absence of action does not by itself prove the existence of a coherent policy choice (Hill, 2016).
1.2 Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and International Relations
Foreign policy and diplomacy are closely connected but analytically distinct. Diplomacy provides methods of representation, communication, negotiation, signaling, and relationship management through which governments pursue many external objectives. It is one instrument of foreign policy rather than its complete content (Hill, 2016).
Foreign policy can also be implemented through economic measures, security cooperation, development assistance, intelligence relationships, military commitments, or participation in international institutions. Some of these activities rely heavily on diplomats; others are led primarily by defense, finance, trade, intelligence, or other branches of government.
International Relations is broader again. As an academic field, it studies interactions among states and a wide range of other actors, as well as structures and processes such as war, international institutions, interdependence, trade, global governance, and distributions of power. Foreign Policy Analysis focuses more specifically on the actors and processes through which external choices are formulated and implemented.
A central concern of Foreign Policy Analysis is consequently agency and actor-specific decision making. It asks who participates in external policy, how actors interpret international pressures, what preferences shape their choices, and why governments facing similar external conditions may respond differently (Hill, 2016).
1.3 States and Other Foreign Policy Actors
States remain central to both the practice and study of foreign policy. Governments possess public authority, diplomatic institutions, armed forces, administrative structures, and international legal capacities that enable sustained external action in ways that ordinary private actors generally cannot replicate.
The category is not necessarily confined to sovereign states. The European Union illustrates the difficulty of drawing an absolute boundary. Under the EU treaties, the Union possesses external competences in several fields and operates a Common Foreign and Security Policy under a distinct institutional framework (European Union, 2012). Its external action can possess continuity and authority separate from, although closely connected to, the national foreign policies of its member states.
This does not mean that every actor operating across borders has a foreign policy. Corporations invest internationally, NGOs conduct advocacy, cities build external partnerships, and transnational movements seek to influence governments. Such actors may affect international politics and state foreign policy without necessarily possessing an autonomous foreign policy themselves.
The analytical case becomes stronger when an actor has sufficient political authority, institutional continuity, decision-making capacity, and autonomy to formulate and implement a recognizable external policy. The boundary remains partly conceptual, which is why state-centered definitions continue to coexist with broader approaches.
2. Foreign Policy Goals and the National Interest
Foreign policy translates political objectives into external action, but states do not pursue a universal hierarchy of goals. Security and political independence remain enduring concerns, while economic prosperity, international influence, access to strategic resources, diplomatic status, and the promotion of particular political or normative preferences may also shape external policy.
These objectives are often grouped under the language of the national interest. The concept becomes misleading when it is treated as an objective formula that exists independently of political interpretation. Governments must decide which interests deserve priority, how competing objectives should be reconciled, and what costs they are prepared to accept.
Hill cautions against using the national interest as a self-explanatory cause of foreign policy. If every policy adopted by a government is simply defined as serving the national interest, the concept risks becoming circular rather than explanatory (Hill, 2016).
2.1 Security, Sovereignty, and Freedom of Action
Security is among the most persistent foreign-policy objectives. At a basic level, it concerns protection of territory, population, political institutions, and the continued independence of the state against external threats.
Governments can pursue security through different combinations of national military capability, alliances, deterrence, diplomacy, intelligence cooperation, arms control, or collective-security arrangements. The choice among these instruments reflects not only material capability but also assessments of threats, reliability of partners, political costs, and acceptable levels of dependence.
Freedom of action can become part of the same calculation. Reliance on foreign suppliers, technologies, energy sources, transport routes, or security guarantees may create vulnerabilities that governments seek to reduce. Such concerns do not produce identical policies across states because geography, resources, alliances, historical experience, and threat perceptions differ.
Security is consequently a persistent foreign-policy goal without being a single policy prescription. Two governments can identify similar threats while adopting substantially different strategies for addressing them.
2.2 Prosperity, Influence, Status, and Values
Economic and foreign policy frequently intersect. Governments use external relations to pursue trade opportunities, investment, access to technology and resources, stable financial relationships, and favorable rules for international economic exchange. Conversely, trade restrictions, sanctions, export controls, aid, and investment policy can serve broader diplomatic or security objectives (Hill, 2016).
Influence and status form another dimension of foreign policy. States may seek greater weight in international organizations, leadership within regional institutions, stronger diplomatic relationships, or a larger role in negotiations affecting their interests. Material power can support these ambitions, but influence also depends on credibility, coalition building, institutional position, and the responses of other actors.
Values can shape foreign policy as well. Governments may seek to promote democracy, human rights, development, environmental objectives, religious or ideological principles, or particular conceptions of international order. Such commitments do not operate separately from security and economic concerns.
Conflicts among objectives are common. A government may value human rights while maintaining security cooperation with a government whose domestic practices it criticizes, or it may seek economic integration with a state it regards as a strategic competitor. Foreign policy frequently involves prioritization rather than the simultaneous achievement of every declared objective.
2.3 Who Defines the National Interest?
References to the national interest can make the state appear more politically unified than it is. Governments formally represent states externally, but political actors may disagree sharply over what national interests require.
Executives often have substantial influence over foreign policy, while legislatures, bureaucracies, parties, businesses, labor organizations, advocacy groups, diasporas, and other social actors may advance different understandings of security, trade, alliances, migration, international institutions, or the use of force. The political importance of these actors varies across constitutional systems and policy areas.
Domestic disagreement becomes especially important when external policies impose concentrated costs or engage contested questions of national identity and political values. Hill's analysis of the national interest emphasizes that governments cannot simply assume the existence of a single domestic consensus from which foreign policy automatically follows (Hill, 2013).
Analytically, the national interest should not be inferred merely from the policy that ultimately prevails. Doing so creates a circular explanation: the state adopts a policy because it serves the national interest, and the national interest is then identified by observing the policy adopted. A stronger explanation asks how competing interests were defined, which actors influenced the decision, and why one interpretation gained political authority.
3. How Foreign Policy Decisions Are Made
Foreign Policy Analysis generally proceeds from the premise that international conditions shape the options available to governments without, by themselves, explaining every choice among those options. Decision makers interpret external threats and opportunities, assess alternatives, operate through institutions, and act with information that is often incomplete.
This focus distinguishes Foreign Policy Analysis from approaches that explain state behavior primarily through the structure of the international system. FPA directs attention to the individuals, organizations, bureaucracies, political institutions, and domestic pressures through which external policy is actually produced (Hill, 2016).
3.1 Leaders, Executives, and Foreign Policy Institutions
In many political systems, executives possess substantial authority over foreign policy, although its scope varies considerably under domestic constitutional arrangements. Heads of state or government, foreign ministers, cabinets, national security institutions, and senior advisers may all participate in determining external priorities.
Leadership often becomes particularly visible during crises, armed conflict, summit diplomacy, or major changes in strategic direction. Even powerful leaders, however, depend on institutions for information, expertise, implementation, and communication with other states.
Foreign ministries provide diplomatic knowledge and maintain external relationships. Defense and intelligence institutions assess security threats and available capabilities, while finance, trade, development, and other ministries increasingly handle policies with important international consequences. Which institution dominates can change according to the issue being decided.
Foreign-policy making is consequently not always a simple process in which a political leader chooses an objective, and the bureaucracy merely executes it. Officials control specialized information, interpret instructions, develop options, and implement decisions. Organizational routines and bureaucratic interests can affect which alternatives reach senior policymakers and how adopted policies operate in practice (Hill, 2016).
3.2 Models of Foreign Policy Decision Making
The rational-actor model provides one starting point for explaining foreign-policy choice. In simplified form, it assumes that decision makers identify objectives, compare available alternatives, estimate likely costs and benefits, and select the option expected to advance their preferences.
The model is analytically useful, but it becomes less convincing when the state is treated as though it possesses a single mind, complete information, and a stable hierarchy of preferences. Foreign-policy decisions are often produced by multiple actors operating within institutions that do not perceive problems or evaluate options identically.
Organizational and bureaucratic approaches shift attention inside government. Organizations operate through established procedures, professional assumptions, and institutional routines. Agencies may also compete over jurisdiction, resources, access to political leaders, or the definition of the problem itself.
Graham Allison's original study of the Cuban Missile Crisis showed how the same foreign-policy episode could generate different explanations depending on whether it was viewed through rational-actor, organizational, or governmental-politics models (Allison, 1971). Allison and Philip Zelikow later substantially revised that analysis while retaining the basic multi-model approach (Allison and Zelikow, 1999).
Psychological approaches focus more closely on the people making decisions. Leaders interpret information through prior beliefs, perceptions of adversaries, historical analogies, expectations about risk, and judgments that may prove mistaken. Group dynamics can also influence which information receives attention and how readily dissenting interpretations are considered (Hill, 2016).
Bounded rationality addresses a more general limitation. Decision makers cannot identify every possible option or calculate every future consequence. Time, information, attention, and cognitive capacity are limited, which means political actors often search for acceptable courses of action rather than theoretically optimal ones (Simon, 1957).
3.3 Legislatures, Parties, and Domestic Political Pressure
Foreign policy is not made exclusively inside executive institutions. Legislatures may possess authority over budgets, treaties, military action, appointments, investigations, or other dimensions of external policy, depending on the constitutional system. Even without direct control over a particular decision, legislative opposition can alter its domestic political cost.
Political parties and electoral competition can also affect the available choices. Governments may consider electoral consequences when dealing with war, trade, migration, sanctions, alliances, or relations with particular states. Public opinion can influence those calculations when an external issue becomes politically salient, but its effect varies across countries and circumstances (Hill, 2016).
Organized interests add further pressure. Businesses, unions, advocacy organizations, diaspora communities, professional associations, and civil-society movements can supply expertise, organize constituencies, provide resources for political mobilization, or frame international questions in ways that attract political attention. Their influence depends on access, organization, resources, issue salience, and competition with other groups.
Media can affect which international developments receive sustained attention and how political choices are publicly framed. Claims that media coverage independently determines foreign policy, however, are difficult to sustain. Governments also influence public agendas and may resist media or public pressure when other objectives carry greater weight (Hill, 2016).
Domestic politics should consequently be treated as part of the environment in which foreign-policy decisions are made rather than as a single cause capable of explaining external behavior on its own. The relative influence of leaders, institutions, parties, public opinion, organized interests, and media changes with the political system, the issue, and the circumstances in which a decision arises.
4. Instruments of Foreign Policy
Foreign policy becomes operational when governments translate objectives into action. Diplomacy, economic statecraft, military capability, and informational influence provide different means of persuasion, bargaining, reassurance, deterrence, and coercion. Their value depends on the objective, available capabilities, the target’s vulnerabilities and preferences, credibility, political costs, and the reactions of other actors (Hill, 2016).
These instruments rarely operate separately. Diplomatic bargaining may accompany sanctions, military deployments may reinforce signaling, and economic incentives may support negotiation. Resources also differ from usable influence: possessing wealth or military strength does not establish that a government can convert either into the political outcome it seeks.
4.1 Diplomacy and Negotiation
Diplomacy enables political actors to represent interests, communicate intentions, gather information, negotiate, manage disputes, build coalitions, and maintain relationships. It can support cooperation, but it also operates during rivalry and crisis. Bargaining may involve promises, warnings, reassurance, or attempts to clarify the intentions of another government.
Negotiation likewise serves purposes beyond producing agreements. It can test possible compromises, exchange information, preserve communication during confrontation, or manage disagreement without resolving its underlying causes. Diplomacy is thus not the opposite of power politics; it is one of the principal ways through which political power and interests are expressed and negotiated (Hill, 2016).
4.2 Trade, Aid, Sanctions, and Financial Power
Economic statecraft uses economic relationships to advance external objectives. Governments may employ trade access, aid, finance, investment, export controls, sanctions, or other incentives and restrictions to alter the choices available to another actor (Baldwin, 1985).
Inducements offer benefits for cooperation, while coercive measures impose or threaten costs. Neither guarantees compliance. Their effect depends partly on the importance of the economic relationship and on the alternatives available to the target.
Interdependence can create leverage as well as vulnerability. States occupying important positions in financial, technological, commercial, or communications networks may be able to exploit asymmetric dependencies, although such leverage depends on the structure of the network and the state’s capacity to control relevant nodes (Farrell and Newman, 2019). Economic pressure can also impose domestic costs on the sender or encourage targets to seek alternative suppliers, markets, or financial channels.
4.3 Military Power, Deterrence, and Security Cooperation
Military capability can serve foreign policy without being used in combat. Armed forces support territorial defense, alliance commitments, deterrence, coercive bargaining, reassurance, overseas deployments, military assistance, and other forms of security cooperation.
Deterrence seeks to affect another actor’s expectations about a contemplated action by altering its assessment of likely consequences or prospects of success. Capability, credibility, communication, and perception may all affect that calculation, although their relative importance varies across deterrence strategies and political contexts (Schelling, 1966).
Military strength should not be equated with political effectiveness. Operations may achieve defined military objectives without producing the broader political outcome for which force was employed. The distinction between resources, capabilities, and instruments is essential: material assets become useful foreign-policy tools only when political authorities can employ them effectively for a particular purpose (Hill, 2016).
4.4 Public Diplomacy, Information, and Attraction
Public diplomacy addresses audiences beyond traditional government-to-government channels through official communication, international broadcasting, educational and cultural exchange, and engagement with foreign publics. Its purposes can include explanation, persuasion, relationship building, and reputational influence (Cull, 2008).
Soft power is related but distinct. Nye uses the concept to describe influence rooted in the attraction that others attach to an actor, its values, culture, or policies rather than to threats or material inducements (Nye, 2004). It is not a discrete instrument that a government can deploy on command.
Public policy can strengthen or damage the conditions from which attraction develops. Communication campaigns cannot easily compensate for conduct that foreign audiences regard as illegitimate or inconsistent with the image a government seeks to project.
5. What Shapes Foreign Policy Choices?
Foreign policy reflects both external constraints and domestic interpretation. Geography, threats, alliances, and relative power affect the choices available to governments, but political institutions, capabilities, identities, and historical experience influence how those conditions are understood and acted upon. Foreign policy lies between choice and constraint rather than being mechanically determined by either international structure or domestic politics (Hill, 2016).
5.1 Geography, Threats, Alliances, and Relative Power
Geography supplies relatively enduring conditions: location, borders, neighboring states, access to maritime routes, and proximity to potential threats or strategic regions. Their political significance can change with technology, infrastructure, alliances, and shifts in power.
Threats are also interpreted rather than measured solely by material capability. Governments assess intentions, military capacity, past conduct, relationships, and the credibility of assurances. Alliance choices reflect similar calculations: partnerships can enhance security and aggregate capabilities while creating dependence, obligations, or concern about the behavior of allies.
Relative power shapes what governments can plausibly attempt without dictating a single response. Less powerful states may compensate for material limitations through alliances, international institutions, economic specialization, or diplomacy. The effect of power is relational: capabilities acquire significance in connection with particular actors and objectives.
5.2 Institutions, Regime Type, and State Capacity
Domestic institutions determine who participates in foreign-policy decisions and how authority is distributed. Constitutional rules, executive-legislative relations, coalition politics, elections, bureaucratic organization, and patterns of political competition can affect the formulation and implementation of external policy.
Regime type does not produce a uniform foreign policy. Democracies differ substantially from one another, as do authoritarian systems. Institutional concentration, electoral accountability, elite competition, legislative oversight, and access to information may alter decision making without mechanically determining its outcome.
State capacity is equally important. Economic resources, military assets, technology, and population create potential capabilities, but effective foreign policy also requires institutions able to obtain information, coordinate policy, conduct diplomacy, mobilize resources, and implement decisions. Material power and usable political influence are not synonymous.
5.3 Identity, Strategic Culture, and Historical Experience
Foreign policy is shaped partly by how political actors interpret their state’s identity, history, interests, and international role. Memories of war, occupation, colonialism, alliance, or previous diplomatic successes and failures can influence how later governments understand external risks and opportunities.
Strategic culture offers one way of examining historically developed assumptions about security, force, risk, and appropriate state behavior. The concept remains contested, particularly when it is used so broadly that culture becomes a fixed explanation for nearly any policy outcome. Stronger approaches treat strategic culture as one influence on political interpretation rather than as an immutable national character (Johnston, 1995).
Historical analogies can similarly guide judgment without determining it. Policymakers may use earlier crises to interpret new situations, yet analogies can mislead when significant differences between cases are ignored (Khong, 1992). Identity and historical experience are best analyzed alongside institutions, material conditions, and political interests rather than as substitutes for them.
6. Foreign Policy Within International Law
Foreign policy concerns political choice, but those choices operate within an international legal order. Governments retain substantial discretion over diplomatic, economic, and security priorities; they do not acquire unlimited legal freedom to use whatever means appear politically useful. Treaties, customary international law, the United Nations Charter, and specialized regimes may authorize, regulate, or prohibit particular conduct (Klabbers, 2024).
Political desirability, strategic effectiveness, and legal permissibility are separate questions. A lawful policy can fail politically, while a potentially effective policy does not become lawful merely because a government regards it as necessary.
6.1 Political Choice and Legal Obligation
Treaty obligations illustrate the distinction. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states the principle of pacta sunt servanda: treaties in force bind their parties and must be performed in good faith (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 26). A change in political preference does not by itself extinguish an existing treaty obligation.
Customary international law can bind independently of a particular treaty. Its identification requires a general practice accepted as law, conventionally expressed through the two elements of state practice and opinio juris (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38(1)(b); ILC, 2018, conclusion 2).
Security policy is also constrained by the UN Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, or otherwise inconsistently with the purposes of the United Nations. The Charter recognizes individual and collective self-defense in Article 51 and gives the Security Council powers under Chapter VII concerning threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression (United Nations, 1945).
6.2 Law Across Major Foreign Policy Instruments
Diplomacy operates within its own legal framework. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic relations and permanent missions depend on mutual consent, while the Convention regulates diplomatic functions, privileges, immunities, and the protection of missions (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, arts 2–3).
Other instruments engage different bodies of law. Economic sanctions may raise questions under Security Council decisions, treaty regimes, jurisdictional rules, trade law, countermeasures, or other applicable obligations depending on their source and design. Recognition may serve foreign-policy purposes, but its political use should be distinguished from the separate legal questions surrounding statehood and recognition.
The same distinction applies to alliances and military commitments. A defense agreement cannot by itself create a right to use force outside the legal framework established by the Charter. States must also settle their international disputes by peaceful means; Article 33 identifies negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and other peaceful methods among the available procedures (United Nations, 1945, arts 2(3) and 33).
6.3 How Foreign Policy Can Influence International Law
The relationship works in both directions. States, acting through their competent institutions and representatives, negotiate treaties, formulate legal positions, participate in international organizations, and generate practice that may contribute to the interpretation or development of international law.
Customary international law illustrates the limits of that influence. State practice may include diplomatic conduct, legislation, executive action, national judicial decisions, treaty practice, and conduct within international organizations. Official statements and diplomatic correspondence may also provide evidence of whether a state regards particular conduct as legally required or permitted (ILC, 2018).
Repeated behavior alone does not establish a customary rule. The ILC’s two-element approach requires both a general practice and acceptance of that practice as law (ILC, 2018, conclusion 2). Conduct based only on convenience, courtesy, or political preference does not necessarily demonstrate opinio juris.
Foreign policy can thus contribute to the formation and interpretation of international rules, while those rules constrain later policy choices. Political agency and legal obligation interact, but neither can be reduced to the other.
7. Continuity, Change, and Foreign Policy Success
Foreign policy often displays considerable inertia. Governments inherit diplomatic relationships, alliance commitments, treaty obligations, bureaucratic arrangements, economic ties, and strategic investments that make abrupt reversal costly. Continuity may persist even after a change of leadership because established policies have created expectations at home and abroad or because workable alternatives are difficult to implement (Hill, 2016; Welch, 2005).
Continuity does not imply consensus or permanence. Political leaders can reconsider inherited assumptions when circumstances change or when the costs of maintaining an established course become harder to accept. The central analytical question is not simply whether policy changed, but how extensively its objectives, instruments, and underlying orientation were altered.
7.1 Why Foreign Policies Persist or Change
Foreign-policy change varies in degree. Hermann distinguishes limited adjustments to the intensity or manner of an existing policy from deeper changes involving programs, objectives, or a government’s broader international orientation (Hermann, 1990). This distinction prevents every alteration in tactics from being treated as a strategic transformation.
Pressure for more substantial change may arise from developments inside or outside the state. Leadership transitions, military conflict, economic disruption, changing threat assessments, shifts in relative power, or problems within established alliances can expose weaknesses in an existing policy. Such developments do not determine the response automatically; political actors still interpret their significance and decide whether adjustment is necessary.
Welch emphasizes the difficulty of overcoming policy inertia. Established policies accumulate institutional commitments and political costs, so decision makers may tolerate disappointing results before accepting the risks of a major reversal (Welch, 2005). Significant change becomes more likely when maintaining the existing course is judged more costly than abandoning it.
Implementation also produces feedback. Other states adapt to incentives and pressure, domestic coalitions may shift, and expected benefits may fail to appear. Governments can respond by modifying instruments while retaining their objectives, or by reconsidering the objectives themselves when the original policy no longer appears viable.
7.2 How Foreign Policy Success Is Judged
Foreign-policy success has no single universally accepted measure. A policy can succeed in one dimension and fail in another: it may be adopted and implemented as intended without producing its desired external outcome, or it may achieve an immediate objective while creating substantial longer-term costs (Kettle, 2025).
A goal-based assessment asks whether the policy produced the outcome policymakers sought. This requires distinguishing outputs from outcomes. Signing an agreement, imposing sanctions, deploying forces, or establishing a diplomatic initiative demonstrates that a policy was implemented; it does not by itself establish that the underlying political objective was achieved.
Costs and time horizons complicate the judgment. A policy may secure a short-term advantage while weakening an alliance, generating economic losses, or creating later strategic difficulties. Preventive objectives are harder to assess because success may consist in an event not occurring, making causal attribution dependent on counterfactual reasoning rather than direct observation.
Effectiveness should also remain separate from legality and legitimacy. A measure may advance its political objective yet violate international law, while a lawful policy may prove strategically ineffective. Credibility, political acceptance, durability, and unintended consequences may also affect a broader assessment of success, depending on the question being asked.
Foreign-policy evaluation should consequently identify the relevant standard before declaring a policy successful or unsuccessful. The strongest assessment considers the objectives pursued, the feasible alternatives available at the time, the contribution of the policy to the observed outcome, and the costs attached to that result.
Also read
Conclusion
Foreign policy is the pattern of external objectives, decisions, commitments, and actions through which a state—or, in more limited circumstances, another sufficiently autonomous political actor—seeks to manage its international relations and influence external outcomes. It is shaped by political institutions, material capabilities, domestic pressures, ideas, historical experience, and the international environment, while diplomacy, economic statecraft, military power, and public diplomacy provide different means of translating objectives into action.
Foreign policy is not synonymous with diplomacy, nor is it simply the automatic expression of an objectively defined national interest. Interests are interpreted and contested, policy choices remain constrained by circumstances and institutions, and international law limits the means available even where governments retain discretion over their political objectives. Understanding foreign policy consequently requires attention not only to what governments declare, but also to how choices are made, how they are implemented, how other actors respond, and what results follow.
References
Allison, G.T. (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Allison, G.T. and Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd edn. New York: Longman.
Baldwin, D.A. (1985) Economic Statecraft. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cull, N.J. (2008) ‘Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), pp. 31–54.
European Union (2012) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 26 October 2012, pp. 13–46. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2012/oj/eng (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
Farrell, H. and Newman, A.L. (2019) ‘Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion’, International Security, 44(1), pp. 42–79.
Hermann, C.F. (1990) ‘Changing course: When governments choose to redirect foreign policy’, International Studies Quarterly, 34(1), pp. 3–21.
Hill, C. (2013) The National Interest in Question: Foreign Policy in Multicultural Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, C. (2016) Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
International Law Commission (2018) ‘Draft conclusions on identification of customary international law, with commentaries’, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Seventieth Session (30 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2018), UN Doc. A/73/10, ch. V, pp. 119–156. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_73_10.pdf (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
Johnston, A.I. (1995) ‘Thinking about strategic culture’, International Security, 19(4), pp. 32–64.
Kettle, L. (2025) ‘Can policy succeed through inactivity? A case study of UK foreign policy after the Gulf War’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 21(1), orae036.
Khong, Y.F. (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Klabbers, J. (2024) International Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nye, J.S. Jr. (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs.
Schelling, T.C. (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Simon, H.A. (1957) Models of Man: Social and Rational; Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945, annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, entered into force 24 October 1945. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/statute (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) done at Vienna, 18 April 1961, entered into force 24 April 1964, 500 UNTS 95. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 11 August 2026).
Welch, D.A. (2005) Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
