German Foreign Policy Rules for Action during the 2011 Libya Crisis

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.3167/GPS.2020.380401
Hermann Kurthen
{"title":"German Foreign Policy Rules for Action during the 2011 Libya Crisis","authors":"Hermann Kurthen","doi":"10.3167/GPS.2020.380401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the conceptualization of fundamental foreign policy beliefs of 62 German decision-makers and experts from the executive branch, parliament, think tanks, media, and academia concerning the March 2011 un Security Council resolution on Libya. The actors’ perceptions were abductively inferred from qualitative interviews using the reconstructivist theoretical framework. Four types of respondents were identified: Realists, Normalizers, Traditionalists, and Pacifists. While they shared the general imperatives of military restraint, alliance solidarity, multilateralism, and upholding values, their specific partisan-ideological interpretation of the application of those rules for action in the case of Libya differed. Both Normalizers and Traditionalists perceived Germany’s UN vote abstention and non-participation in the NATO-led intervention as a break with German foreign policy and a costly mistake, whereas the Realists and Pacifists were in support of the German center-right coalition government’s policy of military restraint, although for very different reasons.","PeriodicalId":44521,"journal":{"name":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","volume":"38 1","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GERMAN POLITICS AND SOCIETY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/GPS.2020.380401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article presents the conceptualization of fundamental foreign policy beliefs of 62 German decision-makers and experts from the executive branch, parliament, think tanks, media, and academia concerning the March 2011 un Security Council resolution on Libya. The actors’ perceptions were abductively inferred from qualitative interviews using the reconstructivist theoretical framework. Four types of respondents were identified: Realists, Normalizers, Traditionalists, and Pacifists. While they shared the general imperatives of military restraint, alliance solidarity, multilateralism, and upholding values, their specific partisan-ideological interpretation of the application of those rules for action in the case of Libya differed. Both Normalizers and Traditionalists perceived Germany’s UN vote abstention and non-participation in the NATO-led intervention as a break with German foreign policy and a costly mistake, whereas the Realists and Pacifists were in support of the German center-right coalition government’s policy of military restraint, although for very different reasons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2011年利比亚危机期间德国外交政策行动规则
本文介绍了62名德国决策者和来自行政部门、议会、智库、媒体和学术界的专家对2011年3月联合国安理会关于利比亚的决议的基本外交政策信念的概念化。运用重构主义理论框架,从定性访谈中推断出演员的认知。被调查者有四种类型:现实主义者、正常化主义者、传统主义者和和平主义者。虽然他们在军事克制、联盟团结、多边主义和维护价值观等方面都有共同的必要性,但他们对这些规则在利比亚行动中的应用的具体党派意识形态解释却有所不同。正常化派和传统派都认为,德国在联合国投票中投弃权票,不参与北约领导的干预行动,是与德国外交政策的决裂,是一个代价高昂的错误,而现实派和和平派则支持德国中右翼联合政府的军事克制政策,尽管原因截然不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
In Government and Scientists We Trust Does the Immigration Issue Divide German Attitudes toward Social Welfare? Hitler's American Countermodel Questioned Nationalism Obituary: Peter Pulzer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1