This course will introduce students to the main techniques and theories for analyzing and understanding how governments make foreign policy decisions. It will be divided into two main interactive components. The first will be dedicated to surveying the leading theories on foreign policy decision-making to provide an avenue for addressing questions such as: What role do personalities play in the process? Does the bureaucracy have an impact? Where do questions of national identity and ambition fit in? How does the form of political regime - democratic or authoritarian - impact the decision-making process? What impact do external factors and structural constraints have on foreign policy decision-making? The second  component will emphasize participation and application of the theories through the research and presentation of selected case studies.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. explain different theories of foreign policy analysis;
2. analyse strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to foreign policy analysis;
3. apply theories of foreign policy analysis to specific cases;
4. conduct research, think critically and develop academic writing styles to suit different purposes; and
5. understand the issues and processes described and to relate them to current affairs and present-day issues of significance.

Required Resources

•    Laura Neack (2008), The New Foreign Policy : Power Seeking a Globalized Era (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield)

•    Valerie M. Hudson (2007), Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory

(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield)

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• Written comments on assignments
• Verbal feedback to the whole class / seminar group
• Postings through the course Wattle site

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Other Information

The information provided is a preliminary Class Outline. A finalised version will be available on Wattle and will be accessible after enrolling in this course. All updates, changes and further information will be uploaded on the course Wattle site and will not be updated on Programs and Courses throughout the semester. Any questions or concerns should be directed to the Course Convenor.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Tuesday - Introduction: Rational models of decision makingFriday - Behavioural models of decision making	Tuesday Readings Stevenson, Betsey and Wolfers, Justin, Principles of Microeconomics, pp 4-8,10-18, 20-31Binmore, Ken. Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006). 1-15, 17-26 Friday Readings Horowitz, Michael C, Stam, Allan C and Ellis, Cali M. (2015) Why Leaders Fight. Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1 and 2·        Jervis, Robert. 2015. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. pp 119-299 (Available as an internet reserve on the ANU library website)
2	Tuesday - Evolutionary models of decision makingFriday - Forecasting	Tuesday ReadingsMercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan. The Enigma of Reason. Chapters 10-12Gigenrenzer, Gerd. Simply Rational: Decision Making in the Real World. Chapter 7Johnson. Strategic Instincts, Chapters 1, 2 & 3.Friday ReadingsTetlock, Philip. 2006. Expert political judgment- How good is it? How can we know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp 1-25; 67 – 121; 216 - 239Tetlock, Philip and Gardner, Daniel. 2015. Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. New York: Random House. Chapters 1, 7 & 12 plus Appendix
3	Tuesday - Scenario planningFriday - Using intelligence	Tuesday Reading Wright, George and Cairns, George. 2011. Scenario Thinking: Practical Approaches to the Future, Chapters 1 & 2Friday Reading     Jervis, Robert. 2010. Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War. Cornell University Press. Chapter 4 – “The Politics and Psychology of Intelligence and Intelligence Reform”Heuer, Richards J. 1999. The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/PsychofIntelNew.pdf. pp 31-111Johnson, Loch K. 2017. National Security Intelligence. Polity. Chapter 2- “Intelligence Collection and Analysis: Knowing about the world”
4	Tuesday - OsintFriday - Decision making in groups	Tuesday Readings Higgins, Elliot. 2021. We are Bellingcat: an intelligence agency for the people, Chapter 1. Zegart, Amy. 2022. Spies, lies and algorithms. Chapter 9. Friday ReadingsJanis, Irving. 1972. Victims of Groupthink. Chapters 1, 8 & 9Mintz, Alex and Wayne, Carly. 2016. The Polythink Syndrome. Chapters 1 & 2.
5	Tuesday - Public opinion and societal influencesFriday - Economic levers of statecraft	Tuesday ReadingsJohn H Aldrich, Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler and Kristin Sharp. (2006). Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection. Annual Review of Political Science. 9:477-50Adam J Berinsky (2007). Assuming the Costs of War. The Journal of Politics. 69 (4): 975-997Ian McAllister and Danielle Chubb. (2020). Australian Public Opinion, Defence and Foreign Policy: Attitudes and Trends since 1945. Chapter 1. Friday Readings Jonathan Kirshner (1997), “The Microfoundations of Economic Sanctions,” Security Studies 6 (3): 32-64.Daniel W Drezner (2003), “The Hidden Hand of Economic Coercion,” International Organization 57 (3): 643-659.Henry Farrell and Abraham L Newman (2019), “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion,” International Security 44(1): 42-79
6	Tuesday - Culture and identityFriday - The international system	Tuesday ReadingsHudson (2007), Chapter 4Neack (2008), Chapter 5 Friday Readings Hudson (2007), Chapter 6 & 7 Neack (2008), Chapter 8, 9 & 10
7	Cuban missile crisis presentations	Reading         Graham T. Allison (1969), “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” American Political Science Review 63 (3) (September): 689-718.
8	Nordstream presentations	Reading Stephen Pifer (2021). Nordstream 2: Background, objections and possible consequences. Brookings Institute Policy Brief
9	Bin Laden raid presentations	Reading        Mark Bowden (2013). The Finish: the Killing of Osama Bin Laden: New York, Grove Press:  Chapters 6 & 7
10	Brexit presentations	Reading         Rudolf G Adam (2020). Brexit: Causes and Consequences. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Press. Chapter 3.
11	Tet Offensive presentations	Reading        Pierre Asselin (2018). Vietnam’s American War: A History: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4
12	Afghanistan withdrawal presentations	Reading Brian Michael Jenkins (2021). Securing the least bad outcome: the options facing Biden on Afghanistan. CTC Sentinel, 1-9

Tutorial Registration

See My Timetable

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date	Learning Outcomes
Seminar Participation	10 %	*	1,2,3,4
Forecast	10 %	25/03/2024	4,5
Group Case Study Presentation	20 %	*	2,3,4
Research Essay	25 %	29/05/2024	1,2,3,4
Timed Take-Home Midterm Exam	35 %	*	1,2,3,4,5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Special Assessment Consideration Guideline and General Information 
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
• Code of practice for teaching and learning

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Participation

You are expected to attend all of your seminar classes and arrive in class ready to constructively engage the presentations made by your classmates. This means you will have, at a minimum, read the set readings for the class on the cases being presented

Assessment Task 1

Seminar Participation

You are expected to attend all of your seminar classes and arrive in class ready to constructively engage the presentations made by your classmates. This means you will have, at a minimum, read the set readings for the class on the cases being presented.

Assessment Task 2

Forecast

Due Date: Monday 25th March, 11.59pm

Details of task: You must make a probabilistic forecast (that is, a number between 0 and 1 representing how likely you think each event to be, with 1 meaning certain and 0 meaning impossible) for each of the following events – 1) that Joe Biden will be reelected as President of the United States in 2024; 2) that the UK Labour Party will win an outright majority in the House of Commons in 2024; 3) that Ukraine will recapture the port of Sevastopol in 2024. You must then justify your forecast. You will be marked on how well you can justify the probabilistic forecast you have made. 

Word limit: 1,500 words

Value: 10% of final grade

Rubric

Criterion	HD	D	CR	P	F
Extent of research	Draws from a wide variety of appropriate sources (e.g. recognized news outlets, statistical agencies etc)	Draws from a reasonable number of appropriate sources	Draws from a small number of appropriate sources	Draws from a small number of sources, often inappropriate	Does not draw from sources beyond own opinion
Systematic approach	Breaks the question down in a coherent manner and applies this approach consistently throughout	Breaks the question down in a coherent manner	Applies a systematic approach but mostly unstructured	Little sign of a systematic approach	No systematic approach. Unstructured stream of consciousness
Application of superforecasting skills from the 'Ten Commandments for Superforecasting' Tetlock reading	Recognized appropriate superforecasting skills and applies them correctly and insightfully. Need not be for every single forecast	Recognized some appropriate superforecasting skills and applies them correctly	Recognized some appropriate superforecasting skills but applies them at times incorrectly	Tries to use superforecasting skills but does not use them appropriately or correctly	No attempt to use superforecasting skills
Awareness of motivated bias	Where appropriate recognizes and corrects for motivated bias (e.g. wishful thinking) and unmotivated bias (e.g. availability heuristic) in own initial judgment	Where appropriate recognizes and corrects for either motivated or unmotivated bias in own initial judgment	Where appropriate recognizes or corrects for either motivated or unmotivated bias in own initial judgment	Shows little awareness of motivated or unmotivated biases	Shows evidence of motivated and/or unmotivated bias and little awareness thereof
Clarity of writing	Writing is clear throughout	Writing is mostly clear	Writing is sometimes clear	Writing is rarely clear	Writing is almost always unclear

Assessment Task 3

Group Case Study Presentation

Details of task: Each seminar class will be assigned at random to one of the cases. You will also be assigned at random to either the ‘blue team’, which must defend the policy actually undertaken by the policy maker in this case, or to the ‘red team’, which must critique the decision. You must use the concepts you have been introduced to in the first half of the course to devise or to critique the policy recommendation. The blue team and red team are not in competition with one another - both teams can get an HD if the quality is sufficient and part of your mark will be based on whether you provide the other team with sufficient and timely information to allow them to fulfil their allotted role.

The case studies are, in chronological order:

1) Should President Kennedy of the United States mount a blockade of Cuba? (Cuban Missile Crisis)

2) Should Chancellor Merkel of Germany agree to the Nordstream 2 pipeline? (Nordstream)

3) Should President Obama of the United States mount a special forces raid on the compound in Abbottabad believed to hold Osama Bin Laden? (Bin Laden Raid)

4) Should Prime Minister May of the United Kingdom trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (to leave the EU) immediately after the Brexit Referendum? (Brexit)

5) Should President Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam order the Tet Offensive? (Tet Offensive)

6) Should President Biden of the United States withdraw all remaining US forces from Afghanistan? (Afghanistan withdrawal)

Value: 20% of final grade

Rubric

Criterion	HD	D	CR	P	F
Purpose and Background Statement	Clearly states the purpose of and background to the presentation	Clearly states the purpose or the background to the presentation	States the purpose or the background to the presentation with some flaws (e.g. overly long, unclear)	States the purpose or the background to the presentation with multiple flaws	Makes no clear statement of the purpose of or background to the presentation
Identification of key considerations	Identifies the key considerations to the relevant policymaker and the key axes of disagreement between the sides of the policy debate	Identifies some of the key considerations to the relevant policymaker and some of the key axes of disagreement between the sides of the policy debate	Identifies some of the key considerations to the relevant policymaker or some of the key axes of disagreement	Identifies few key considerations or key axes of disagreement	Identifies no key considerations or axes of disagreement
Quality of evidence/research	Produces compelling evidence to support conclusions reached in presentation	Produces decent evidence to support conclusions	Produces some evidence to support conclusions	Produces little compelling evidence to support conclusions	Produces no evidence or inaccurate evidence
Quality of slides	Slides are visually compelling, easy to follow, well structured and free from errors	Slides are visually compelling, easy to follow, well structured but with a few errors	Slides are visually compelling but structure is unclear and errors are present	Slides are visually decent but structure is lacking and errors are present throughout	Slides are visually poor, structure is lacking and errors are ever-present
Quality of stagecraft	Presenters all display open body language, make eye contact and make good use of space	Some presenters display open body language, make eye contact and make good use of space	Some presenters display open body language, make eye contact or make good use of space	One presenter displays open body language, makes eye contact or good use of space	No presenters display open body language, make eye contact or make good use of space
Quality of verbal delivery	Presenters all project their voices clearly and naturally, talk at a reasonable pace and avoid verbal fillers (e.g 'um' and 'ah'). No reading from notes or electronic devices	Some presenters project their voices clearly and naturally, talk at a reasonable pace and avoid verbal fillers. Some reading from notes.	Some presenters project their voices clearly and naturally, talk at a reasonable pace or avoid verbal fillers. Some reading from notes.	One presenter projects their voice clearly and naturally, talk at a reasonable pace or avoid verbal fillers. Some reading from notes	No presenters speak clearly. Excessively fast or robotic delivery and use of verbal fillers. Presentation is simply recited from a set of notes.

Assessment Task 4

Research Essay

Due Date: Wednesday 29th May 11.59pm

Details of task: Write an argumentative essay analyzing the reasons for the decision which was taken (by the relevant decision maker) in the case study on which you presented in light of the theories presented in this course. For instance, if you presented on the Cuban Missile Crisis you should write about why President Kennedy decided to order a blockade even if your group advocated a different decision in the presentation. To be clear, each member of the group must write and submit their own, independent essay. The assignment will be submitted via Wattle/Turnitin and results will be released through the Wattle platform. References will be included in the word count.

Word limit (where applicable): 1,500 words

Value: 25% of final grade

Estimated return date: Two weeks after submission

Rubric

Criterion	HD	D	CR	P	F
Quality of Writing	Writing is clear throughout. Minimal grammatical or spelling errors. Sentences and paragraphs are short and to the point. Minimal use of jargon. Referencing is neat and consistent throughout.	Writing is mostly clear. Some sentences or paragraphs may be excessively long and jargon may at times appear. Some errors in grammar, spelling and referencing	Writing is sometimes clear. Many sentences and paragraphs are overly long and include jargon. Many errors in grammar, spelling and referencing.	Writing is rarely clear. Many sentences and paragraphs are long. Errors strewn throughout	Writing is highly unclear and full of errors.
Quality of Structure	The essay follows a clear and simple structure which is signposted from the start and followed throughout	The essay follows a structure which is signposted from the beginning but is hard to follow or not consistently followed	The essay signposts a structure but rarely follows it. Alternatively the essay has a structure but it is not signposted and hard to discern	The essay has some structure which is not signposted and often not followed	The essay has no signs of structure and planning.
Quality of Evidence	The evidence evinced by the author to support their conclusions comes from a number of sources going beyond the required readings and is convincing throughout.	The evidence either comes only from the required readings or is not convincing throughout	The evidence comes only from the required readings and is not convincing througout	The evidence is rarely convincing	Little or no evidence is provided to support the author's claims.

Assessment Task 5

Timed Take-Home Midterm Exam

Details of task: You will answer a series of questions about the theoretical material covered in the lectures. The exam will be of a take home format with an irrevocable submission deadline – late submissions will not be accepted. Answers must be in full sentence form and prepared on a word processor so that they may be submitted via Wattle/Turnitin. Results will be released through the Wattle platform.

Word limit: 1,500 words

Value: 35% of final grade

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.

 

The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Late Submission

Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material.

Returning Assignments

Assignments will be returned through the Wattle platform.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Access and inclusion for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills and Learning Centre supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents undergraduate and ANU College students
• PARSA supports and represents postgraduate and research students