Do the transatlantic relations have a future after the Iraq crisis and what will they look like? This question will be discussed in this and the next issue of WeltTrends.<br> For this debate, Thomas Risse, Chair of International Relation at the Freie Universität Berlin, provides the initial input. Risse focuses on controversial issues inside of Europe, the outcome of which will be decisive for the future of the transatlantic relationship. Will the European consensus once constituted by the commitment to international law and multilateralism persist? What is the European position regarding democracy and human rights in the Middle East? Will Europe develop a strategy to cope with the new kind of threats posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dictators or terrorists? Risse´s article has provoked a debate inside the German academic community, whose contributions will be published in the next issue of WeltTrends.

In the 1990s when enlargement of Euro-Atlantic organizations was slowly becoming reality, a theory exploring interaction between an organization and its member states gradually resigned from primary perception of the state as a socialized actor (socializee) and this concept was substituted by the notion of political actors. It was the theory of socialization that became more and more important in terms of examining impact of political organizations on political representatives of Member States, their behaviour and possible interaction between them. This recent and dynamic theory was often confronted with obstacles, especially in terms of its theoretical anchoring. Even within the framework of ongoing academic debate, this theory did not obtain clear recognition. Researches examining causal relationship between socialization and subsequent behaviour of politicians come up with various results. The aim of this thesis is to enter into this debate and verify the hypothesis assuming that the decisions of foreign policy actors are influenced by socialization of respective political actor. Verification of the hypothesis was carried out on example of Iraq in 2003 by the means of media coverage and official documents content analysis. Possible socialization of six foreign policy makers was examined on the...

Cette thèse analyse l’élaboration de la politique étrangère de Dominique de Villepin - telle que voulue par le Président Chirac - en se basant tout d’abord sur l’étude de la personnalité du ministre : Comment y a-t-il eu alors interaction entre son vécu, ses propres aspirations et la situation internationale à laquelle il a été confronté ? Chef de la diplomatie française de mai 2002 à mars 2004, il est arrivé au pouvoir à une période charnière. En effet, les attentats du 11 septembre ont eu pour conséquence la mise en place par l’Administration Bush d’un processus qui devait conduire à la guerre en Irak, mais aussi à une grave crise des principes internationaux. Pendant la crise irakienne, le ministre a essayé de défendre le droit contre la force, la négociation contre un certain arbitraire, le dialogue entre les cultures contre le choc des civilisations. Parallèlement, la crise en Côte d’Ivoire a été l’un autre enjeu de la politique de D. de Villepin, qui a notamment promu le rôle des organisations régionales. Les enjeux internationaux n’ont pas été les seuls champs d’action du ministre : de la Convention pour l’avenir de l’Europe à l’échec en France du référendum constitutionnel, de l’intégration dans l’Union des anciens pays de l’Est à la question des limites de l’Europe, la construction européenne a également été l’un des grands enjeux de son passage sur la scène politique française. À ce sujet d’ailleurs, nous analyserons la réception de sa politique, en élargissant notre propos à l’Amérique et à certains États de l’Union européenne. Enfin, nous essayerons de voir quelle peut être la pérennité de sa théorie des relations internationales, qu’il a longuement développée tant sur le fond – en voulant développer de nouveaux instruments de négociation – que sur la forme, avec toute l’importance qu’il a pu accorder au verbe. / This research analyses the making of Dominique de Villepin’s foreign policy - as decided by President Chirac – by studying in a first time the Minister personnality : so, how could an interaction be between his real-life, his own longings and the international context he had to face up? Head of French diplomacy from May, 2002 to March, 2004, he came into office in a transition period. Indeed, a consequence of 9-11 attacks was the process set up by the Bush administration, which would lead to war in Iraq, but to a serious crisis of international principles too. During Iraqi crisis, the Minister tried to defend law against strength, negotiation against some arbitrariness, dialogue between civilizations against clash of civilizations. At the same time, the Ivorian crisis has been one of the other stakes in D. de Villepin’s policy, who particularly promoted the role of regional organizations. International challenges were not the minister’s only sphere of activity : From the Convention for the Future of Europe to the constitutional referendum failure in France, from the former Eastern countries integration in EU to the limits of Europe matter, European construction was one of great stakes of his come by the French political stage. On that subject, we will analyze his policy reception, widening our remarks to America and to some countries of the European Union. At least, we would try to see what could be his theory of international relationship, which was developed both on the content – by developing new negotiation tools – and on the form, with all the importance devoted to word.

Approved for public release; distribution in unlimited. / The dynamics in U.S.-Turkey relations in both 1964 and 2003 continued to be between a large global power and a medium regional power in the framework of a global threat that required regional cooperation. In both cases the priority of the global power was the fight against the global threat and this created expectations from the medium power ally in the region, who -in both cases- had its own reservations about the issue, considering its own national interests. The analysis of the 1964 Crisis shows that both U.S. and Turkey would have five main sources of influence over their foreign policy decisions leading to disagreement in 1964: the dynamics in the U.S. Turkish relations as one between a global power and a regional partner; domestic concerns of both countries; unaligned goals of the two parties; the international circumstances; and the influence of signaling failures and previous interactions. When we analyze the 2003 Crisis in light of these findings we see that all the main issues seem to be consistently relevant, though their effects might have changed slightly. Overall, both cases reveal that the above-mentioned five factors determine the outcome of interactions between large global powers and medium powers in the region. / 1st Lieutenant, Turkish Army