The Mediatization of Foreign Policy, Political Decision-Making and Humanitarian Intervention (eBook)

Douglas Brommesson is Associate Professor in Political Science at Lund University, Sweden. His main research interests include foreign policy analysis, international relations and religion and politics. Most recently, he co-edited the volume Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchanges (2015). His articles have appeared in journals such as Cooperation and Conflict, International Politics, the Journal of International Relations and Development, and the International Review of Sociology. Ann-Marie Ekengren is Professor in Political Science at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research areas are foreign policy decision-making, international relations and party politics. Ekengren is the author of seven books and has published articles in the International Review of Sociology, International Studies Quarterly and Party Politics among others.

1. Mediatization of foreign policy decision-making1.1 Our theoretical argument in brief1.2 Disposition of the book2. The scope conditions of mediatized foreign policy2.1 A process that permeates all parts of society, all the time…?2.2 The need for a delimited understanding of mediatization2.4 CNN literature as empirical support for uncertainty as an important scope condition2.5 Towards an analytical framework3. Design and methodological concerns3.1 Scope conditions on a general level – empirical evidence from the UNGA3.2 Two empirical cases – Libya and Côte d’Ivoire3.3 Studying three actors – Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom3.4 How to proceed with the empirical studies4. Mediatization in the United Nations General Assembly4.1 Mediatization of process and form4.2 Measuring indications of a mediatized foreign policy in UNGA speeches4.3 Empirical findings from the UN General Assembly4.3.1 Changes in foreign policy content4.3.2 The scope conditions of mediatization of the content of politics4.3.3 Changes in form4.4 The relationship between form and content4.5 Three hypothesis regarding the scope conditions of mediatization4.6 Conclusions5. Political logic at play in Côte d’Ivoire5.1 The development leading to civil war in Côte d’Ivoire5.1.1 The presidential elections in 2010 and the UNSC in 20115.2 Media reports on the crisis in Côte d’Ivoire5.3 Finnish Media reports on the crisis in Côte d’Ivoire5.4 Finnish foreign policy roles in relation to Côte d’Ivoire5.5 Swedish media reports on the crisis in Côte d’Ivoire5.6 Swedish foreign policy roles in relation to Côte d’Ivoire5.7 British media reports on the crises in Côte d’Ivoire5.8 British foreign policy roles in relation to Côte d’Ivoire5.9 Comparative section on Finnish, Swedish and British foreign policy towards Côte d’Ivoire5.9.1 Uncertainty5.9.2 Identity5.9.3 Resonance5.10 Analytical conclusions6. Mixed logics at play in Libya6.1 The path towards civil war in Libya6.2 Media reports on the crisis in Libya6.3 Finnish media reports on the crisis in Libya6.4 Finnish foreign policy roles in relation to Libya6.5 Swedish media reports on the crisis in Libya6.6 Swedish foreign policy roles in relation to Libya6.7 British media reports on the crisis in Libya6.8 British foreign policy roles in relation to Libya6.9 Comparative section on Finnish, British and Swedish foreign policy toward Libya6.9.1 Uncertainty6.9.2 Identity6.9.3 Resonance6.10 Analytical conclusions7. Conclusion: towards a theory on the variation of mediatization of foreign policy7.1 Media reporting on the hostilities in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya7.2 Foreign policy roles regarding the conflicts in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya7.3 Media logic or political logic?7.4 The role of scope conditions7.5 Mediatization and foreign policy making in the futurediv>