Open    Access



Blurring the Distinction Between “High” and “Low” Politics in International Relations Theory: Drifting Players in the Logic of Two-Level Games



Author(s)

Nathan Olsen

Full-Text PDF XML     1219 Views

DOI:10.17265/2328-2134/2017.10.005

Since the beginning of international relations as a formal academic discipline in 1919, the realist paradigm has dominated academic debate, and consequently, major foreign policy decisions. This paradigm focuses on “politics” as the actions of so-called “high politics”; that is to say, primacy is given to actions between states over the actions that occur within states. This article will aim to demonstrate that the “low politics” of domestic policy should be considered to a further extent than it currently is in the field of international relations theory. In doing so, this article will focus on sub-unit level factors that have considerable impact on international relations; namely, political parties, terrorist organizations, and lobbying groups. However, it is recognised that proponents of neo-liberal theory, such as Keohane and Nye, and academics studying interest group theory, such as Kabashima and Sato, have done much work to further the idea of international relations theory as more than state-centric analysis. This article will act as an attempt to further this idea both through normative and conceptual analysis. The article uses Putnam’s concept of two-level games as a basic model of international-domestic relations, hoping to expand on the concept whilst retaining its integrity.

sub-unit, non-state actors, Putnam