IR in the Middle East: foreign policy analysis in theoretical approaches
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819870238 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819870238
International Relations
2020, Vol. 34(2) 225 –245
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117819870238
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
IR in the Middle East: foreign
policy analysis in theoretical
approaches
May Darwich
Durham University
Juliet Kaarbo
The University of Edinburgh
Abstract
Research on international relations of the Middle East (IRME) has suffered from a schism between
International Relations (IR) theory and regional particularities. To address this, scholars have
offered corrective accounts by adding domestic factors to IR structural approaches. Studies on
IRME thus reflect the turn to decision-making and domestic politics that has recently occurred.
This article develops a critical analysis of the domestic politics orientation in IRME. We argue
that this scholarship ignores work in foreign policy analysis (FPA) with its psychological-oriented
and agent-based dimensions and that this constitutes a missed opportunity for the study of the
region. The article offers suggestions for incorporating FPA research into IRME and argues that
an FPA perspective offers an alternative and complementary approach to the eclectic frameworks
predominant in the scholarship on IRME.
Keywords
foreign policy analysis, IR of the Middle East, IR theory
Introduction
Middle East scholars have consistently cautioned against an intellectual gulf dividing
International Relations (IR) theory and the study of international relations of the Middle
East (IRME). Noting a lack of cross-fertilization between IR theories and region-focused
analyses, many have highlighted the necessity to move beyond the ‘Area Studies
Corresponding author:
May Darwich, Durham University, Elvet Hill road, Durham DH1 3TU, UK.
Email: may.darwich@durham.ac.uk
870238IRE0010.1177/0047117819870238International RelationsDarwich and Kaarbo
research-article2019
Article
226 International Relations 34(2)
Controversy’ in favour of dialogue between IR theory and Middle Eastern studies.1
Theoretical approaches applied to IRME have increasingly crossed this schism, bridging
IR theories with the study of the region’s particularities and complexities.2 The last three
decades provide numerous outstanding, sophisticated work that combined IR theories
and in-depth knowledge of regional affairs to propose a modified IR theory applied to the
Middle East. Whereas some have contextualized mainstream IR approaches to fit the
alleged exceptional regional characteristics,3 others have adopted a disciplinary eclecti-
cism combining insights from several approaches to capture the region’s political dynam-
ics.4 Despite difference in ways to engage IR theory, most IRME scholarships include the
domestic sphere as the primary corrective strategy to attain a ‘valid’ IR theory applied to
the region. Middle East scholars agree that states in the region developed as fragmented,
unstable and vulnerable to transnational forces, what Salloukh called ‘state permeabil-
ity’.5 Due to this persistent weakness, states in the region cannot be approached as uni-
tary actors;6 domestic politics are at the centre of IRME.
This ontological position within contemporary IRME work converges with the turn to
decision-making and domestic politics that has occurred over the last 25 years in IR
theory. This domestic turn in IR, however, often lacks theoretical development and
makes assumptions that can be challenged by research in foreign policy analysis (FPA),
with its focus on agents for understanding international politics. FPA considers the role
of decision-making units to be central, where leaders (decision makers) subjectively
interpret international and domestic factors. Despite the centrality of domestic politics in
IRME, this scholarship generally ignores work in FPA, particularly FPA’s psychological
and agent orientation. This constitutes a missed opportunity for the study of the region.
We propose that FPA offers an analytical framework, a research agenda and an ontologi-
cal stance that allows fruitful development of domestic politics in IRME scholarship.
This article develops a critical analysis of the domestic politics orientation in IRME
while situating it within broader theoretical developments in the IR discipline. The aim
of this article is not to offer a single foreign policy theory for IRME that is alternative to
existing theoretical frameworks. Instead, it is a meta-theoretical contribution with the
intent of developing theoretical understanding of IRME. We argue that the incorporation
of domestic factors in the study of IRME has not led to clear and sustained theoretical
progress and that a serious engagement with an FPA perspective – conceptually rich in
its understanding of how domestic politics influences foreign policy – can increase the
comparative value of research conducted by Middle East scholars within the IR disci-
pline. We draw on Kaarbo’s promise that an FPA perspective can offer an ‘integrating
crucible for the cross-theoretical turn toward domestic politics and decision making in IR
theory’ and illustrate the value of such exercise at a regional level.7
We begin by defining FPA as a subfield and a distinct perspective in IR. We then
examine how domestic factors have been integrated within IRME, focusing on realist-
based approaches and constructivism. Within each of these theoretical perspectives, we
explore how FPA research defies or develops the integration of domestic and decision-
making factors with IRME. The last section suggests four avenues of research for incor-
porating FPA research into IRME: an understanding of public opinion’s influence based
on the distribution of information, the decision unit framework, leadership style
and role theory. This section shows that an FPA perspective offers an alternative and
To continue reading
Request your trial