Performing national interest through practices: the U.S. Congress and foreign policy

Performing national interest through practices:
the U.S. Congress and foreign policy


Neklyudov N.Y.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, nehkludow96@gmail.com


elibrary_id: 984594 |

Article received: 2022.07.02. Accepted: 2022.09.23


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2023.01.07
EDN: TQTXZM


For citation:

Neklyudov N.Y. Performing national interest through practices: the U.S. Congress and foreign policy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2023. No. 1. P. 75-95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.01.07. EDN: TQTXZM


This paper is prepared within the framework of Grant No. 20-78-10159 of the Russian Science Foundation. I am indebted to I. Istomin, N. Silaev, A. Chekov, and A. Sushentsov for their stimulating criticism and comments to the text. I thank I. Neumann for his time and comments on my research program. For general comments I thank J. Melnikova, V. Vorotnikov, and A. Chechevishnikov as well as anonymous reviewers for their comments.


Abstract

Russian literature on the U.S. Congress’ role in foreign policy is still fragmented. Although scholars depart from the premise that it performs a number of critical functions to ensure the adoption of foreign policy decisions, the literature omits the theoretical argument on the role of the American Congress. I build on the Practice Turn in International Relations’ (PTIR) “welcome move to redirect our attention to the unconscious habitual practices that constitute most of daily social life,” including the making of parliamentary legislation. This article examines congressional practices that reinterpreted the U.S. approach to engagement with Russia on the implementation of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to Ballistic Missile Defense during Barack Obama’s presidency. I elaborate on how throughout four congressional cycles the initiative once introduced by the Administration was reinvented in the practices of lawmakers: from Democrats, who marshalled the bills with plans to integrate the Russian missile defense system into the American one, to Republicans who advocated for the complete prohibition of cooperation between the military departments of Russia and the United States. I draw the attention to the mundane nature of the tragedy of world politics: an international crisis is born in the routine interaction of people immersed in a “game of practices” rather than a conscious escalation of tensions. The article proceeds as follows. First, the major pillars of PTIR and the ways of conceptualize of the U.S. Congress are reviewed. Second, the paper tracks the practices of U.S. legislators as regards the interpretation of the means and ends of the strategic dialogue with Russia on missile defense.

Keywords
the U.S., U.S. Congress, foreign policy building, Russia, ballistic missile defense.


References

Adler, E., & Pouliot, V. (2011). International practices. International Theory, 3(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017S175297191000031X

Andersen, M.S., & Neumann, I.B. (2012). Practices as models: a methodology with an illustration concerning wampum diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3), 457-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829812441848

Bennett, W.L., & Paletz, D.L. (Ed.). (1994). Taken by storm: the media, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The logic of practice. Redwood: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). The purpose of reflexive sociology (the Chicago workshop). In: P. Bourdieu, & L. Wacquant (Ed.), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (pp. 61-115). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Brody, R.A. (1991). Assessing the president. The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Brooks, S.G. (1997). Dueling realisms. International Organization, 51(3), 445-477. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550429

Byers, J.S., Carson, J.L., & Williamson, R.D. (2020). Policymaking by the executive: examining the fate of presidential agenda items. Congress & the Presidency, 47(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2019.1631905

Carter, R.G, Scott, J.M., & Rowling, C.M. (2004). Setting a course: congressional foreign policy entrepreneurs in post-World War II U.S. foreign policy. International Studies Perspectives, 5(3), 278-299.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan Education UK.

Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goure, D. (2012). The Obama administration’s phased-adaptive architecture: technological, operational and political issues. Defense & Security Analysis, 28(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2012.651376

Groshek, J. (2008). Coverage of the pre-Iraq war debate as a case study of frame indexing. Media, War & Conflict, 1(3), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635208097049

Gross, J.H., & Kirkland, J.H. (2019). Rivals or allies? A multilevel analysis of cosponsorship within state delegations in the U.S. Senate. Congress & the Presidency, 46(2), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2018.1523972

Hatipoglu, E. (2014). A story of institutional misfit: Congress and U.S. economic sanctions. Foreign Policy Analysis, 10(4), 431-445.

Hopf, T. (2010). The logic of habit in international relations. European Journal of International Relations 16(4), 539-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110363502

Hopf, T. (2018). Change in international practices. European Journal of International Relations, 24(3), 687-711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117718041

Hunt, Ch.R. (2021). Beyond partisanship: outperforming the party label with local roots in congressional elections. Congress & the Presidency, 48(3), 343-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2020.1811425

Jenkis, R. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge.

Johnson, R.D. (2001). Congress and the Cold War. Journal of Cold War Studies, 3(2), 76-100.

Korda, M., & Kristensen, H.M. (2019). US ballistic missile defenses, 2019. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75(6), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1680055

Leek, M., & Morozov, V. (2018). Identity beyond othering: crisis and the politics of decision in the EU’s involvement in Libya. International Theory, 10(1), 122-152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971917000148

Leogrande, W.M. (2002). Tug of war: how real is the rivalry between congress and the president over foreign policy? Congress & The Presidency, 29(2), 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343460209507730

Lindsay, J.M. (1986). Trade sanctions as policy instruments: a re-examination. International Studies Quarterly, 30(2), 153. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600674

Maguire, L. (2013). The US Congress and the politics of Afghanistan: an analysis of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees during George W. Bush’s second term. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(2), 430-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2013.784583

Marshall, B.W., & Prins, B.C. (2002). The pendulum of congressional power: agenda change, partisanship and the demise of the post-World War II foreign policy consensus. Congress & the Presidency, 29(2), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343460209507734

Martin-Maze, M. (2017). Returning struggles to the practice turn: How were Bourdieu and Boltanski lost in (some) translations and what to do about it? International Political Sociology, 11(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx014

Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Meernik, J. (1994). Presidential decision making and the political use of military force. International Studies Quarterly, 38(1), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600874

Merand, F. (2010). Pierre Bourdieu and the birth of European defense. Security Studies, 19(2), 342-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636411003795780

Morgenthau, H., & Thompson, K. (1985). Politics among nations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Neumann, I.B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: the case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201

Neumann, I.B., & Pouliot, V. (2011). Untimely Russia: hysteresis in Russian-Western relations over the past millennium. Security Studies, 20(1), 105-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2011.549021

Oppermann, K., & Spencer, A. (2018). Narrating success and failure: congressional debates on the ‘Iran nuclear deal’. European Journal of International Relations, 24(2), 268–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117743561

Panagopoulos, C., Leighley, J.E., & Hamel, B.T. (2017). Are voters mobilized by a ‘friend-and-neighbor’ on the ballot? Evidence from a field experiment. Political Behavior, 39(4), 865-882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9383-3

Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090

Pouliot, V. (2010). International security in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676185

Pouliot, V. (2020). Historical institutionalism meets practice theory: renewing the selection process of the United Nations Secretary-General. International Organization, 74(4), 742-772. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081832000020X

Pouliot, V., & Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: a research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715574913

Prins, B.C., & Marshall, B.W. (2009). Senate influence or presidential unilateralism? Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(2), 191-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894208101129

Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814

Rudalevige, A. (2015). Executive branch management and presidential unilateralism: centralization and the issuance of executive orders. Congress & the Presidency, 42(3), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2015.1077484

Schatzki, Th., Cetina, K.K., & von Savigny, E. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.

Searle, J.R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

Tama, J. (2020). Forcing the president’s hand: how the US Сongress shapes foreign policy through sanctions legislation. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(3), 397-416. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz018

Waltz, K.N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Whang, T. (2011). Playing to the home crowd? Symbolic use of economic sanctions in the United States. International Studies Quarterly, 55(3), 787-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00668.x

 

Abramov, Yu.K., & Zubok, V.M. (1990). Partii i ispolnitel’naya vlast’ v SShA (70-80-e gody) [Political parties and executive power in the USA (70-80-ies)]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Bogaturov, A.D. (2010). Istoki amerikanskogo povedeniya [The origins of American behavior]. In Sovremennaya mirovaya politika: prikladnoĭ analiz [Modern world politics: applied analysis] (pp. 356-369). Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Grafov, D.B. (2016). Pro-Russian and anti-Russian lobbying in the USA. Pro-Russian and anti-Russian lobbying in the USA. USA & Canada Journal, 3, 101-116. (In Russ.)

Grishanov, A.A. (2012). Role of interest groups in foreign policy decision making by the U.S. Congress. USA & Canada Journal, 1, 107-119. (In Russ.)

Istomin I., & Baykov, A. (2019). Dynamics of international alliances in an unbalanced world structure. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 63(1), 34-48. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-1-34-48

Kashirina, T.V. (2011). The US Congress discussions on the deployment of American antimissile defence system in 1969. Vestnik Baltiiskogo Federal’nogo Universiteta im. I. Kanta, 6, 152-158. (In Russ.)

Kodzoev, M. (2019). The problem of the normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba in the US Congress. USA & Canada Journal, 8, 92-106. (In Russ.)

Konyshev, V., & Sergunin, A. (2019). Congressional black caucus: the role in making the U.S. domestic and foreign policies. World Eсonomy and International Relations, 63(10), 67-77. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-10-67-77

Konyshev, V.N. (1999). Prinyatie reshenii o voennykh interventsiyakh: otnoshenie prezidenta i kongressa SShA (1982-1991) [Decision-making on military interventions: relations between the President and the US Congress (1982-1991)]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University. (In Russ.)

Kosolapov, A.N. (1999). Kontury novogo miroporyadka [Contours of the new world order]. In Postindustrial’nyi mir: tsentr, periferiya, Rossiya: Sb. 1: Obshchie problemy postindustrial’noi epokhi [Postindustrial world: center, periphery, Russia. Vol. 1: General problems of the post-industrial era] (pp. 213-241). Moscow: IMEMO RAS. (In Russ.)

Krivolapov, O.O. (2014). Missile defense problem and missile threat: debates in the USA (2001-2012). USA & Canada Journal, 3, 31-44. (In Russ.)

Krivolapov, O.O. (2015). Missile defense funding: debates during the presidency of B. Obama. USA & Canada Journal, 6, 104-116. (In Russ.)

Manykin, A.S. (1981). Istoriya dvukhpartiinoi sistemy SShA (1789-1980) [The history of the US two-party system (1789-1980)]. Moscow: Moscow State Universiy Publ. (In Russ.)

Pechatnov, V.O., & Manykin, A.S. (2012). Istoriya vneshnei politiki SshA [The history of US foreign policy]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russ.)

Rebro, O.I., & Suchkov, M.A. (2021). “Disoriented superpower”: U.S. foreign policy in the post-bipolar world. Journal of International Analytics, 12(3), 19-37. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-3-19-37

Samuylov, S.M., & Mirzayan, G.V. (2012). The Capitol Hill and Russian-American reset. USA & Canada Journal, 4, 3-19. (In Russ.)

Shakleina, T.A. (2015). Leadership and contemporary world order. International Trends, 13, 4, 6-19. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2015.13.4.43.1

Shakleina, T.A. (2017). Rossiya i SShA v mirovoi politike [Russia and US in the world politics]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Shakleina, T.A. (2020b). American policy towards Russia: competition, deterrence and governing control. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin “Political Science. History. International Relations” Series, 4, 10-26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2020-4-10-26

Shakleina, T.A. (2021). Donald Trump and “New Populism” in America. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 176-183. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.05.12

Shakleina, T.A. (Ed.). (2020). Rossiya i SShA v XXI veke. Osobennosti otnoshenii [Russia and the USA in the XXI century. Relationship features]. Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Sushentsov, A.A. (2014). Malye voiny SShA. Politicheskaya strategiya SShA v konfliktakh v Afganistane i Irake v 2000-2010-kh godakh [America’s small wars. US strategy in the Afghan and Iraq conflicts in 2000-2010th]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russ.)

Sushentsov, A.A. (2020). S – strategy. Russia in Global Affairs, 18, 1, 134-137. (In Russ.)

Sushentsov, A.A., & Pavlov, V.V. (2021). “Vocation crisis” in the State Department: problems of converting US foreign policy potential into influence. Polis. Political Studies, 2, 76-98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.02.06

Terebov, O.V. (2019). U.S. Congress and policy of the Donald Trump Administration with regard to Russia. USA & Canada Journal, 7, 78-95. (In Russ.)

Timofeev, I.N. (2018). The U.S. sanctions against Iran: experience and eventual implications. Polis. Political Studies, 4, 56-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.04.05

Troitsky, M.A. (2013). The Congress and U.S. policy towards Russia. USA & Canada Journal, 2, 57-70. (In Russ.)

Troitsky, M.A. (2014). The role of Congress in shaping U.S. policy towards Ukraine. USA & Canada Journal, 3, 75-84. (In Russ.)

Volkov, V.V., & Kharkhordin, O.V. (2008). Teoriya praktik [Theory of practices]. Saint Petersburg: European University in Saint Petersburg. (In Russ.)

Zhuravleva, V.Yu. (2005). Evolyutsiya otnoshenii prezidentskoi vlasti i kongressa SShA v period prezidentstva B. Klintona (1990e gody) [Evolution of relations between the presidential power and the US Congress during the presidency of B. Clinton (1990s)]. Moscow: ISK RAS. (In Russ.)

Zhuravleva, V.Yu. (2011). Peretyagivanie kanata vlasti: vzaimodeistvie Prezidenta i Kongressa SShA [American presidents and Congress in tug-of-war for power]. Moscow: IMEMO RAS. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 1, 2023

See also:


Kazantzev A.A.,
Liberal approach to russian foreign policy. Notes on the margins of the book by V. Petrovsky. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No2

Information,
The 6th All-russian congress of political science. Report. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No1

Kazantzev A.A., Merkushev V.N.,
Russia and the Post-Soviet Space: Perspectives of Applying «Soft Power». – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No2

Gelman V.Ya.,
“Encounter with an Iceberg”: Concept Formation and Misformation in the Study of Russian Politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2001. No6

Hermann M.G.,
Styles of Leadership in the Policy Making. – Polis. Political Studies. 1991. No1

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
1 2014


Pshizova S.N.
Is it possible to regulate democracy? Part II.

  Полный текст
 

Archive

   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991