The Role of Religion in Foreign Policy

Role of Religion in Foreign Policy In order to best understand the role of religion in foreign policy, it is necessary to recognize that religion plays a role in foreign policy. However, the role of religion in international relations tends to be overlooked. In many ways omission of such important elements affecting international politics is harmful and should be dealt with (Fox, 2001: 73). Religion influences international politics in various ways.

Role theory is a conceptual framework with a long history in the field of foreign policy analysis. In order to explain and understand the foreign state policy of the nation state, the role theory focuses on inference of state political elite, their interpretation of international system and their role in larger system. Despite its conceptual rigidity, methodological openness and abundant empirical application, mainstream scholars seem to ignore role theory. The role theory we are talking about is a long-term conceptual tool for foreign policy analysis. Although the analytical possibilities of role theory are high, it is recently that we have witnessed the resurgence. After Holst's research on the concept of national roles was announced, role theory first gained the attention of foreign policy literature. So far, role theory has developed over the past 40 years in sociology, social psychology, and anthropology.

Role theory was first introduced in 1970 by Kalevi Holsti in the article "The Concept of the National Role in Foreign Policy Studies". In 1970, Holstie criticized the role of the state of an unnecessary primitive form and the structural conditions related mainly to the type of role of the state, such as groups, leaders, satellites, allies, non-allies. This type ignores the major role played by small countries in the system and various regions. When structuralism analyzes foreign policy, Holstie tries to focus attention again to the source of domestic and foreign policy actions.

According to the US Constitution, both President and Congress agree to formulate foreign policy. They are said to have cross-cutting purposes in foreign policy. Each plays a different but overlapping important role. Mismatch between these administrative departments and the legislative department is inevitable. However, these foreign policy disputes are sometimes constructive or not necessarily bad. This situation often helps to improve foreign policy. It is worth noting that these two branches have constant opportunities to develop and change foreign policy and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the policy life cycle. However, if foreign policy services are poor, the relationship between the executive branch and the legislature becomes hostile and unpleasant.