Unraveling the Contemporary Decision Making in International Relations: A Critical Analysis | Musssaib Rasool Mir, Santosh Kumar

Introduction

International decisions are often complex due to the interconnected nature of global issues. Humanitarian, security, environmental, and economic problems frequently overlap. Interdependence means that decisions taken by one nation or group of nations can have profound effects on other nations, requiring coordinated responses. But depending on how well the interests of each state match, prioritizing their sovereignty and national interests during the decision-making process may result in disputes or compromises. International decisions often reflect a balance between global needs and the specific goals of individual nations. National leadership being the linchpin in the decision-making process, takes a central role in the whole process. Therefore the article explains the role of the domestic elite that is the national leadership of state(s) in the decision-making process in International relations. The article also explains the consequences of decision-making, as to how the decisions of the leadership bring out changes at the international level. The article does not go into the process of decision-making per se, rather shows that the foreign policy decision of the state is the handiwork of the national leadership. While we understand that leaders do not always make bad decisions that have a negative impact on the world stage, rather many positive and wise decisions have also changed the world for the good. We are also fully aware that the decision-making involves a number of agencies, both formal as well as informal, yet the role that the leadership plays is overarching and enjoys un-parallel and unchallenged dominance. But in these pages we have limited our work only to analyze the decision making of national leadership and how bad decisions adversely affect the international relations and the larger structure of International system. With suitable examples from the contemporary world we substantiate our arguments.

Contextualizing Decision Making in IR theory

Decision-making in International Relations is a critical concept studied by scholars across various disciplines. Decision-making in international relations plays a crucial role in shaping the world we live in. It involves how countries, international organizations, and other global actors come together to make choices that impact global governance, diplomacy, and pressing transnational issues. This process is not simple—it requires carefully balancing competing interests, managing complex geopolitical dynamics, and finding solutions to global challenges like climate change, security, and economic crises. In a world where every decision can have far-reaching consequences, understanding how these choices are made is essential to navigating and improving international cooperation and stability. The work of prominent scholars like Richard C. Snyder, H.W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin, Graham T. Allison, Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf, Robert Jervis, Alexander George, Herbert A. Simon, James N. Rosenau, etc., all emphasize the importance of decision making at the international level. After reviewing their selected works one important theme that’s common to all of them and that runs like a thread throughout their works is the central role of leadership in shaping and influencing the international decisions of their states. The review highlights the need of comprehending how political leaders make decisions and the influence those decisions have on international relations. Decision-making is frequently viewed as motivated by the pursuit of national interests, power, and security “by states, through their leaders and institutions, choose policies based on their perception of the international environment, their own capabilities, and the behavior of other states” (Jarvis 1976).

National leadership has a defining role in the whole setup of decision-making process whether they are consulting their populations or not, and whether their motive is to gain personal power or look after the interests of their state. Alexander George (1994) highlighting the role of leadership in framing a state’s foreign policy defines decision-making as “the process by which a state’s leadership responds to external pressures and opportunities, based on a rational evaluation of available information, options, and the probable outcomes of alternative courses of action”. The intricacy of decision-making in international relations is reflected in this discussion, which highlights the impact of perceptions, cognitive constraints, logical analysis, local and global influences, and perceptions on the decisions taken by institutions and state leaders. Models of decision-making are therefore crucial instruments that assist people and organizations in reaching deliberate, well-informed decisions. They lessen ambiguity, assist organize the decision-making process, and enhance decision quality. The authors Bazerman, Baron & Shonk (2001) suggest that government leaders could benefit from basic decision-making skills. Valuable resources often misused, squandered and ignored can be used to the optimal levels possible. Still human fallibility, psychological bias, lack of full knowledge about the course of events, inability to process whole data, the dynamic nature of the international structure and a host of other factors add to the complexity of making the most optimal and precise decision. Hence, decision making at the international level where the consequences of a wrong decision can adversely impact vast majorities of the populations across territorial boundaries of states, becomes a very precarious project.

Decision-making both at the domestic as well as international level (inside/outside debate of realist theorists), throughout history, has been the privilege of the selected few only. In democracies it’s the elected members who own the exclusive right to formulate policies both for the national population living with in its territorial boundaries, what John Agnew (1994) calls “the territorial trap” as well as in its dealings with the other sovereign entities, known as nation states in the modern political milieu. The case is no different, even worse when it comes to less democratic and dictatorial nation states where populations are tightly controlled and monitored. The elite few whom we can call the ‘national leadership’ take all important decisions about the national and international political life of the entire populations are very rarely kept under check and questioned from below. Depending upon the nature of the national regime and the type of the domestic polity, the authority of the state and its leadership over its citizenry varies from absolute to limited, as one marches along the continuum of the regimes. The case study of states like China, North Korea, and Russia shows that all the decisions vis a vis other states are taken by the (autocratic) rulers without bothering about the peoples’ opinion ostensibly for whom they are taken. Similarly, in democracies, like US, India etc., where the so-called elected national leadership is bestowed the responsibility to take the foreign policy decisions, peoples’ opinions, -in whose name only they are taken- about the policy issues are treated like the proverbial ‘Casting pearls before the swine’ thing.

While we understand that there are many actors involved in chiseling a foreign policy decision and different agencies/ departments are involved in the broader decision making, yet the enormous role and comprehensive say of the head of the state or government overshadows all other players, actors and agencies involved in the process. It is substantiated by factual knowledge, ground reports and historical records and this hard reality of international structure is uncontested by any major school of International Relations. The only reasonable disagreement between different schools of International Relations (IR) theory over the distribution of power revolves around how power is understood, how it should be distributed, and the implications of power distribution for international stability and conflict. Therefore, we can argue that the decision making is an elitist project- while not necessarily being a follower of the Elite theory of Democracy- where the citizenry is largely marginalized. This in turn gives birth to anti-politics, which is a generic term for a feeling or movement that is marked by a strong disbelief or open rejection of established political players, institutions, and procedures. Adherents of anti-politics may feel demoralized by the current political order, perceiving it as corrupt, incompetent, or divorced from the needs and aspirations of the people. This negative outlook towards the state and its leadership, both at the national as well as international level takes roots when the decisions are very consequential for the larger populations, yet they are not heard and considered as the active participants of the decision making process. Add to this tendency of the leadership, the decisions that turn out wrong which not only are disastrous for the states own populations but also have ripple effects for whole global system with long lasting and historical significance. International history is full of such examples and the broader global problems and conflicts one way or another are the after effects of such wrong decision making by the so called world leaders.

The contemporary leadership and decision making in IR

Let’s not dig deep into the history to substantiate our claim, rather the modern era itself is loaded with examples which give us a clear picture of the complexity of international decision making and the role that leaders play in such important tasks of world politics.

Imagine for a minute Donald Trump again takes charge of the Presidential office in the coming US elections. “The debate ranges between those who believe he will abandon Ukraine, withdraw from NATO, and herald a “post-American Europe”—and those who predict he will escalate the Russian-Ukrainian war and continue his fiercely anti-communist policies” (Gabriel Scheinmann, 2024). He has already taken some decisions which were highly controversial and have left a long lasting influence on the world politics. Withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty and threating NATO of US membership withdrawal if a fixed proportion of GDP of the states is not spend on the defense are the two major decisions he took during his first tenure at office. “Trump is likely to end the Biden administration’s pressure on Israel to end the war against Hamas, de-escalate against Iran, and withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank. Trump would end Biden’s embargo on certain U.S. arms deliveries to Israel, halt aid to Gaza, and de-emphasize humanitarian concerns” (Gabriel Scheinmann, 2024). It goes without saying that all leaders during their tenure make such foreign policy decisions which have a broader and sometimes negative consequences for the international system, yet some decisions are more important with far reaching implications as they are backed or framed by the leadership of the powerful states. A foreign policy decision taken by the head of the state of Chile cannot be equated with the decision taken by the head of a state like China, US, etc. Sometimes, geopolitics can come handy for the smaller states, yet the powerful states possess the resources to navigate the geo-political advantages of smaller states with diplomatic or coercive instruments of statecraft.

Some decisions seem to be the only way forward for the immediate future, and the leadership cannot anticipate the future course of events, bringing significant changes. Instead of solving the problem, the leadership policies magnify it. Take the example of the War in Afghanistan post 9/11 and Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 2003. Although the US – led coalition successfully ousted the governments of both the states, yet it cannot control, let alone eradicate the terrorism it claimed to be the problem both for the internal misery of the people as well as for the community of states. The foreign policy step which George Bush took in 2001, had to be endured by all the leadership of USA, till Trump and then finally Joe Biden took a radical step of withdrawing the US presence in Afghanistan in 2021. The policy decision with many supporters and critics, has yet to be bear fruits at the international level and its only in the coming years when the world will see the real consequences of such decision making.

The Israeli response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack can also be seen in the light of a hurriedly carried out bad policy decision- making. The indiscriminate military campaign of Israel has killed around 40 thousand innocent humans, creating a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. And the goals of the campaign- eradicating the Hamas and its supporters- are yet to be anywhere close of being achieved. What has instead happened is that the policies of Netanyahu, despite being challenged on all fronts, both nationally as well as internationally have created a situation where no solution seems viable for the parties concerned. The failure to create a sustainable climate where a long lasting international dispute can be consigned to the dustbin of history, shows the foreign policy failure of the leadership on all sides. Richard Haass (2024) wrote in the Foreign Affairs recently “If success is defined as persuading Israel to adopt the course Washington wants, then U.S. policy toward the country since October 7 must be judged a failure”. Up to now, no U.S. president (with the partial exception of George H. W. Bush) demanded that Israel stop building or expanding settlements and threatened sanctions if it didn’t. The leadership has a central role in driving states towards peace and saving the populations from want, disease, ignorance and squalor. The world is full of examples and situations which we can cite to show that the many serious challenges the world is facing or has faced in the past are the creations of the elite few whom the populations consider their leaders. Ukraine war, the conflict between India and Pakistan, Middle East, the Taiwan Straits conundrum, etc. are the monsters of their own creation. And the responsibility to figure out the ways out of these serious geopolitical challenges also comes down upon the leadership. With authority comes great responsibility and the hope remains that the leadership of the respective states would take upon themselves the task of shaping foreign policy decisions having international ramifications for the betterment of the global society of states by understanding that the whole world is one single unit and each citizen of their state is also the citizen of the globe.

Conclusion

The role of leadership in the decision-making process of states is pivotal, as leaders are the central figures who synthesize information, evaluate options, and ultimately make decisions that shape the direction of national and international policies. Their ability to navigate complex domestic and international pressures, interpret the strategic environment, and balance competing interests directly impacts a state’s behavior on the global stage. While institutional structures, bureaucracies, and external factors certainly influence decision-making, leadership remains the key variable in determining a state’s course of action. Leaders’ personal beliefs, experiences, and leadership styles can significantly alter the outcomes of decisions, particularly in times of crisis or uncertainty. As such, understanding the role of leadership is essential for analyzing how states respond to global challenges, manage conflicts, and pursue their national interests in a complex, interconnected world.

(Authors: Musssaib Rasool Mir is a Junior Research Fellow at Department of South and Central Asian Studies, School of International Relations, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, India 151401. Author mail id: musaibmirkmr[at]gmail.com ; Santosh Kumar is Assistant Professor at Department of South and Central Asian Studies, School of International Relations, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, India 151401. Author email id: santosh.kumar[at]cupb.edu.in)

References

• Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., Sapin, B., Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., & Sapin, B. (2002). Decision-making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics (pp. 21-152). Palgrave Macmillan US.
• Allison, G. T., & Zelikow, P. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (Vol. 327, No. 729.1). Boston: Little, Brown.
• Kegley, C. W., & Wittkopf, E. R. (2006). World politics: Trend and transformation. Thomson Wadsworth.
• Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in international Politics. Princeton UP.
• George, A. L. (1994). The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy. Little Bown and Complay.
• Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. Simon and Schuster.
• Rosenau, J. N. (2006). The Study of World Politics: volume 1: theoretical and methodological challenges. Routledge.
• Bazerman, M. H., Baron, J., & Shonk, K. (2001). " You can’t enlarge the pie": six barriers to effective government. Cambridge.
• Agnew, J. (2017). Globalization and sovereignty: Beyond the territorial trap. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Scheinmann, G (2024). Trump 2.0 Would Face a New World. Foreign Affairs.
• Haass, R. (2024).The trouble with allies. Foreign Affairs.