1.
Hill C. Foreign policy in the twenty-first century [Internet]. Second edition. London: Palgrave; 2016. Available from: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=4763919
2.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
3.
Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
4.
Alden C. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches [Internet]. London: Routledge; 2012. Available from: http://ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login?url=http://www.myilibrary.com?id=368750
5.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
6.
Rosenau JN. The scientific study of foreign policy. Rev. and enl. ed. London: Pinter; 1980.
7.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
8.
Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
9.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
10.
Hudson VM. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Second edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub; 2014.
11.
Giacomello G, Ferrari F, Amadori A. With friends like these: foreign policy as personal relationship. Contemporary Politics. 2009 June;15(2):247–264.
12.
Hudson VM. Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2005 Feb 4;1(1):1–30.
13.
David C. Who was the real George Bush? Foreign policy decision‐making under the bush administration. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 1996 Mar;7(1):197–220.
14.
Zhang Q. Towards an Integrated Theory of Chinese Foreign Policy: bringing leadership personality back in. Journal of Contemporary China. 2014 Sept 3;23(89):902–922.
15.
Görener AŞ, Ucal MŞ. The Personality and Leadership Style of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: Implications for Turkish Foreign Policy. Turkish Studies. 2011 Sept;12(3):357–381.
16.
Rottinghaus B. Presidential Leadership on Foreign Policy, Opinion Polling, and the Possible Limits of "Crafted Talk”. Political Communication. 2008 Apr 29;25(2):138–157.
17.
Pravda A. Is there a Gorbachev foreign policy? Journal of Communist Studies. 1988 Dec;4(4):100–120.
18.
Gallagher ME, Allen SH. Presidential Personality: Not Just a Nuisance. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 Jan;10(1):1–21.
19.
DYSON SB. Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2006 July;2(3):289–306.
20.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
21.
Alden C. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches. London: Routledge; 2012.
22.
Hudson VM. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Second edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub; 2014.
23.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
24.
Garrison JA. Foreign Policymaking and Group Dynamics: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going. International Studies Review. 2003 June;5(2):155–202.
25.
Clarke M, White B. Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systems approach. Aldershot: Elgar; 1989.
26.
Graham T. Allison and Morton H. Halperin. Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications. World Politics [Internet]. Cambridge University Press; 1972;24:40–79. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/2010559
27.
Hocking B. Adaptation and the foreign policy bureaucracy: The experience of federal states. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 1994 Mar;5(1):47–72.
28.
Lai H, Kang SJ. Domestic Bureaucratic Politics and Chinese Foreign Policy. Journal of Contemporary China. 2014 Mar 4;23(86):294–313.
29.
Badie D. Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2010 Sept 22;6(4):277–296.
30.
GARRISON J. Constructing the ‘National Interest’ in U.S.?China Policy Making: How Foreign Policy Decision Groups Define and Signal Policy Choices. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2007 Apr;3(2):105–126.
31.
Kaarbo J, Beasley RK. Taking It to the Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2008 Jan;4(1):67–81.
32.
Marsh K. Obama’s Surge: A Bureaucratic Politics Analysis of the Decision to Order a Troop Surge in the Afghanistan War. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 July;10(3):265–288.
33.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
34.
Hudson VM. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Second edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub; 2014.
35.
Alden C. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches. London: Routledge; 2012.
36.
Hadfield A. British foreign policy, national identity, and neoclassical realism [Internet]. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2010. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester/Doc?id=10435057
37.
Mattes M, Rodríguez M. Autocracies and International Cooperation. International Studies Quarterly. 2014 Sept;58(3):527–538.
38.
Rosenau JN. Domestic sources of foreign policy. New York: Free Press; 1967.
39.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
40.
Reiter D. Political structure and foreign policy learning: Are democracies more likely to act on the lessons of history? International Interactions. 1995 Feb;21(1):39–62.
41.
Ungerer JL. Assessing the Progress of the Democratic Peace Research Program. International Studies Review. 2012 Mar;14(1):1–31.
42.
CHAN S, SAFRAN W. Public Opinion as a Constraint against War: Democracies’ Responses to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2006 Apr;2(2):137–156.
43.
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Randolph M. Siverson and Gary Woller. War and the Fate of Regimes: A Comparative Analysis. The American Political Science Review [Internet]. American Political Science Association; 1992;86(3):638–646. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/1964127
44.
Waltz KN. Foreign policy and democratic politics: the American and British experience. Harlow: Longmans; 1968.
45.
Lee S. Canadian values in Canadian foreign policy. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 2002 Jan;10(1):1–9.
46.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
47.
Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
48.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
49.
Alden C. Foreign policy analysis: new approaches. London: Routledge; 2012.
50.
Nincic M, Ramos JM. Ideological structure and foreign policy preferences. Journal of Political Ideologies. 2010 June;15(2):119–141.
51.
Thorngate W. The social psychology of policy analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2001 June;3(1):85–112.
52.
Lebow RN. Psychological dimensions of post‐Cold War foreign policy. Israel Affairs. 1996 Mar;2(3–4):46–56.
53.
Schafer M. Science, Empiricism, and Tolerance in the Study of Foreign Policymaking. International Studies Review. 2003 June;5(2):155–202.
54.
Jack S. Levy. Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping a Conceptual Minefield. International Organization [Internet]. The MIT Press; 1994;48(2):279–312. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/2706933
55.
Goldsmith B. Imitation in International Relations: Analogies, Vicarious Learning, and Foreign Policy. International Interactions. 2003 July;29(3):237–267.
56.
Oppermann K, Spencer A. Thinking Alike? Salience and Metaphor Analysis as Cognitive Approaches to Foreign Policy Analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2013 Jan;9(1):39–56.
57.
Dolan TM. Emotion and Strategic Learning in War. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 Aug;n/a-n/a.
58.
O?Reilly KP. Perceiving Rogue States: The Use of the ‘Rogue State’ Concept by U.S. Foreign Policy Elites. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2007 Oct;3(4):295–315.
59.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
60.
Hudson VM. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Second edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub; 2014.
61.
Langhorne R. The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 2005 June;16(2):331–339.
62.
Michael A. Cohen and Maria Figueroa Küpçü. Privatizing Foreign Policy. World Policy Journal [Internet]. Sage Publications, Inc.; 2005;22(3):34–52. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/10.2307/40209975?origin=api
63.
Kim Y. How NGOs Influence US Foreign Aid Allocations. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 Aug;n/a-n/a.
64.
McMillan SL. Subnational Foreign Policy Actors: How and Why Governors Participate in U.S. Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2008 July;4(3):227–253.
65.
True J, Mintrom M. Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly. 2001 Mar;45(1):27–57.
66.
Price R. Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization. 1998 June;52(03):613–644.
67.
Hoffman MES. Discretion, Lobbying, and Political Influence in Models of Trade Policy. The Journal of Policy Reform. 2005 Sept;8(3):175–188.
68.
Warner CM, Walker SG. Thinking about the Role of Religion in Foreign Policy: A Framework for Analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2011 Jan;7(1):113–135.
69.
Joachim J. Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women’s Rights. International Studies Quarterly. 2003 June;47(2):247–274.
70.
Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones. Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. The Journal of Politics [Internet]. Cambridge University Press; 1991;53(4):1044–1074. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/2131866
71.
Nelson P, Dorsey E. New Rights Advocacy in a Global Public Domain. European Journal of International Relations. 2007 June 1;13(2):187–216.
72.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
73.
Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
74.
GILBOA E. The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International Relations. Political Communication. 2005 Feb 16;22(1):27–44.
75.
Robinson P. The CNN Effect Revisited. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 2005 Oct;22(4):344–349.
76.
Gilboa E. Diplomacy in the media age: Three models of uses and effects. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 2001 June;12(2):1–28.
77.
Rosenau JN. Domestic sources of foreign policy. New York: Free Press; 1967.
78.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
79.
Robinson P. Theorizing the Influence of Media on World Politics: Models of Media Influence on Foreign Policy. European Journal of Communication. 2001 Dec 1;16(4):523–544.
80.
Hjarvard S, Kristensen NN. When media of a small nation argue for war. Media, War & Conflict. 2014 Apr 1;7(1):51–69.
81.
Wang J, Wang X. Media and Chinese Foreign Policy. Journal of Contemporary China. 2014 Mar 4;23(86):216–235.
82.
Murray S. Broadening the Debate about War: The Inclusion of Foreign Critics in Media Coverage and Its Potential Impact on US Public Opinion. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2013 Apr;n/a-n/a.
83.
The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis - Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1):39. Available from: http://www.annualreviews.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060406.214132
84.
Baru S. The Influence of Business and Media on Indian Foreign Policy. India Review. 2009 Aug 13;8(3):266–285.
85.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
86.
Smith S, Hadfield A, Dunne T. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
87.
Cable J. Foreign policy making: Planning or reflex? Diplomacy & Statecraft. 1992 Nov;3(3):357–381.
88.
Kleiner J. The Inertia of Diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft. 2008 June 13;19(2):321–349.
89.
John G. Tower. Congress versus the President: The Formulation and Implementation of American Foreign Policy. Foreign Affairs [Internet]. Council on Foreign Relations; 1981;60(2):229–246. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/10.2307/20041078?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=ongress&searchText=versus&searchText=the&searchText=President:&searchText=The&searchText=Formulation&searchText=and&searchText=Implementation&searchText=of&searchText=American&searchText=Foreign&searchText=Policy&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dongress%2Bversus%2Bthe%2BPresident%253A%2BThe%2BFormulation%2Band%2BImplementation%2Bof%2BAmerican%2BForeign%2BPolicy%26amp%3Bfilter%3Djid%253A10.2307%252Fj50000070%26amp%3BSearch%3DSearch%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3BglobalSearch%3D%26amp%3BsbbBox%3D%26amp%3BsbjBox%3D%26amp%3BsbpBox%3D
90.
Breuning M. Roles and Realities: When and Why Gatekeepers Fail to Change Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2013 July;9(3):307–325.
91.
Charles F. Hermann. Changing Course: When Governments Choose to Redirect Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. Wiley; 1990;34(1):3–21. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/10.2307/2600403?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Changing&searchText=Course:&searchText=When&searchText=Governments&searchText=Choose&searchText=to&searchText=Redirect&searchText=Foreign&searchText=Policy&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DChanging%2BCourse%253A%2BWhen%2BGovernments%2BChoose%2Bto%2BRedirect%2BForeign%2BPolicy%26amp%3Bfilter%3Djid%253A10.2307%252Fj100193%26amp%3BSearch%3DSearch%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3BglobalSearch%3D%26amp%3BsbbBox%3D%26amp%3BsbjBox%3D%26amp%3BsbpBox%3D
92.
Hagan JD, Everts PP, Fukui H, Stempel JD. Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy. International Studies Review. 2001 Sept;3(2):169–216.
93.
Saideman SM, Ayres RW. Pie Crust Promises and the Sources of Foreign Policy: The Limited Impact of Accession and the Priority of Domestic Constituencies. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2007 July;3(3):189–210.
94.
Foreign Policy Engineering: From Theory to Practice and Back Again. International Security [Internet]. The MIT Press; 18(4):143–171. Available from: http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/journals/international_security/summary/v018/18.4.zelikow.html
95.
Stern EK. Crisis Studies and Foreign Policy Analysis: Insights, Synergies, and Challenges. International Studies Review. 2003 June;5(2):155–202.
96.
T. Knecht and M. S. Weatherford. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: The Stages of Presidential Decision Making. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. Wiley; 2006;50(3):705–727. Available from: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/stable/10.2307/4092800?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Changing&searchText=Course:&searchText=When&searchText=Governments&searchText=Choose&searchText=to&searchText=Redirect&searchText=Foreign&searchText=Policy&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DChanging%2BCourse%253A%2BWhen%2BGovernments%2BChoose%2Bto%2BRedirect%2BForeign%2BPolicy%26amp%3Bfilter%3Djid%253A10.2307%252Fj100193%26amp%3BSearch%3DSearch%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3BglobalSearch%3D%26amp%3BsbbBox%3D%26amp%3BsbjBox%3D%26amp%3BsbpBox%3D
97.
Hill, Christopher. The capability-expectations gap, or conceptualizing Europe’s international role. Journal of Common Market Studies [Internet]. 31(3). Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9408291165&site=ehost-live
98.
Hill C. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2003.
99.
Neack L. The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2008.
100.
K. J. Holsti. National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly [Internet]. Wiley; 1970;14(3):233–309. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3013584
101.
Hudson VM. Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory. Second edition. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub; 2014.
102.
Wehner LE, Thies CG. Role Theory, Narratives, and Interpretation: The Domestic Contestation of Roles. International Studies Review. 2014 Aug;n/a-n/a.
103.
Carranza ME. Rising Regional Powers and International Relations Theories: Comparing Brazil and India’s Foreign Security Policies and Their Search for Great-Power Status. Foreign Policy Analysis. 2014 June;n/a-n/a.
104.
Jordaan E. The concept of a middle power in international relations: distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon. 2003 Nov;30(1):165–181.
105.
Sussex M. The impotence of being earnest? Avoiding the pitfalls of ‘creative middle power diplomacy’. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2011 Nov;65(5):545–562.
106.
Gecelovsky P. Constructing a middle power: Ideas and Canadian foreign policy. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 2009 Jan;15(1):77–93.
107.
Beeson M. Can Australia save the world? The limits and possibilities of middle power diplomacy. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 2011 Nov;65(5):563–577.
108.
Nye JS. Power and foreign policy. Journal of Political Power. 2011 Apr;4(1):9–24.
109.
Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S. Primacy. International Security [Internet]. The MIT Press; 34(4):63–95. Available from: http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy3.lib.le.ac.uk/journals/international_security/v034/34.4.larson.html
110.
Brown C. Do Great Powers Have Great Responsibilities? Great Powers and Moral Agency. Global Society. 2004 Jan;18(1):5–19.