The discipline of International Relations is frequently depicted as an American dominated discipline. This disciplinary self-image has become so entrenched that it is rarely questioned and operates as a ‘quasi-fact’ within the field. However, the manner in which this widespread claim has been put forth is largely speculative. There is a surprising lack of data verifying the prominent notion, and indeed the ‘evidence’ that does exist is largely out-dated and methodologically problematic. As such, this thesis attempts to remedy this dearth of data by systematically investigating if and how the United States dominates the discipline of IR. Rather than speaking of a generic and ambiguous form of dominance this thesis begins by disaggregating the concept of dominance and stating the ways in which an actor can potentially dominate and how this can be measured. What this crucially means is that the US may dominate in some ways and not others. Through exploring twelve of discipline’s international journals over a ten-year period from 1999-2009, and four international conferences from 2005-2011 it becomes clear that the central issue is not whether the United States dominates the discipline but the degree and manner in which it does. Through demonstrating the numerous current trends and inclinations in the discipline a complex image of the IR emerges; an image that challenges a number of prevalent assertions about the disciplinary character of IR. The findings presented illustrate how the discipline of IR is more international and more diverse than is commonly perceived, and yet how the discipline of IR still experiences certain forms of American dominance. This thesis aims to highlight the importance of perspective and consequently how we need to be more nuanced and reflective in the ways we characterize the discipline’s dominance claims. Overall this thesis aims to highlight the many dynamics occurring at different levels of the discipline, all of which shape the contours of the field and IR’s relationship with the American academy.

This dissertation focuses on the intersection of foreign policy, public opinion, and domestic politics in Taiwan, a relatively young democracy under persistent threat. It examines the influence of a variety of internal political forces on Taiwanese foreign policy and employs various methodologies. The dissertation contributes to the scant literature of weak state political behavior in political science. It sheds light on the nuances missing in research that focuses on major powers. Substantively, it integrates a variety of subfields including international relations, public opinion, public support for war, and Taiwan studies.<div><br></div><div>Drawing from original surveys of activists and elites, the first study examines how public opinion on the Sunflower Movement, a nationwide movement led mostly by students, shaped the decisions of political leaders who were negotiating a major trade pact with China. The central finding from this case is that in some circumstances, public opinion could outweigh the importance of political factors such as elite rivalry in influencing the decision-making of political elites. The second study analyzes mass opinions regarding a hypothetical armed conflict with China. I find that generations, neglected in existing war support literature, play an essential role in shaping popular support for this conflict. Finally, I develop a novel theory of diversionary foreign policy pursued by asymmetrically weak states. Here, I show how Taiwanese leaders use aggressive foreign policy toward China to divert from domestic problems and garner public support. The major theoretical claims are that weak state leaders, for various reasons, often would use different types of diversionary tactics compared to their counterparts in major powers.<br></div>