When Do States Adopt Realist or Liberal Foreign Policies Toward Ongoing Wars? An Analysis Using Worldviews.

One of the leading debates in international relations concerns whether realism or liberalism better models state behavior. This dissertation contributes to this debate by reformulating these leading theories of international politics into a theory of foreign policy behavior. This competing worldview theory argues that liberalism and realism are distinct and coherent worldviews potentially held by the leadership of independent states. It deduces characteristics of those ontologies from the leading theories of international politics. When decision makers receive information, such as from observation of a war in the external environment, the national leaders will develop a single definition of the situation. This initial problem representation will strongly predispose the national leadership toward certain types of reactive behavior. The dissertation then sets forth several hypotheses as to the circumstances under which foreign policy is based on liberalism or realism. Using official statements issued by the governments of the United States, Canada, and India, the dissertation tests those hypotheses to determine the conditions under which states tend to adopt a liberal foreign policy. The results of this analysis generally support the hypotheses set forth by realists states tend to adopt a liberal foreign policy when addressing a war that does not involve an ally, a rival, or a fellow democracy. They also tend to adopt liberal foreign policies when their economy is growing relative to economic competitors and when their security has been guaranteed by a great power. These results do not seem to apply to India the final analysis included only the United States and Canada. The worldviews identified in the text seem to correspond to state action states whose leaders are issuing liberal policy statements tend to participated in multilateral action those whose lead