Justifications and Precedents as Constraints in Foreign Policy Decision- Making

Abstract

Foreign policy actions are accompanied, as a matter of course, by justifications in terms of precedent, consistency, and resolve. The proposition developed in this paper is that the necessity of justifying foreign policy decisions acts as a constraint on what counts as an acceptable alternative. Proposed courses of action which cannot be plausibly justified are considered, ceteris paribus, unacceptable. This constraint is supported by the nature of international politics and the politics of the policy setting. The uncertainty of international politics results in a premium on the appearance of consistency. The importance of justifications and precedents is reinforced within policymaking settings because of the shared belief in the importance of consistency. An examination of U.S. decision-making during the Cuban missile crisis provides support for the role of precedent and justification as constraints on acceptable alternatives.