Journal Articles
The Boundaries of Acceptability: France’s Positioning and Rhetorical Strategies During the Arab Uprisings
2019
with Arsène Brice Bado and Jonathan Paquin
Why did French leaders adopt vastly different positions during the Arab uprisings? Building on recent studies that emphasize the importance of rhetoric to understand states’ behaviour, this article argues that France’s inconsistent positioning results from decision-makers trying to remain within political boundaries that are acceptable both to their domestic audiences and to foreign partners. Through a chronological content analysis of France’s top decision-makers’ responses to the crises in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain, the article provides evidence that acceptability-enhancing rhetorical strategies contribute to explaining foreign policy positioning.
Obama’s Leadership Style: Enabling Transatlantic Allies in Libya and Mali
2017
with Jonathan Paquin and Justin Massie
This article assesses President Obama’s transatlantic leadership style with regard to foreign crises and it contrasts it with the style of the previous Bush administration. It argues that the Obama administration exercises enabling leadership, which implies that the US does lead, but that it does not feel the need to project ‘leadership from the front’. The article presents a computer-assisted content analysis of the 482 official statements issued by these four states in response to the crisis in Libya in 2011 and Mali in 2012–2013. The paper provides qualitative and quantitative evidence suggesting that the Obama administration consciously adopted enabling leadership, a strategy that is consistent with the worldview of the president and his foreign policy entourage.
Taking Flight or Crashing Down? European Common Foreign Policy and International Crises
2016
What was the level of commonality in European foreign policy for recent international crises? This article assesses the level of commonality by conducting a chronological comparative content analysis to bring to light the rhetoric of European powers (United Kingdom, France and Germany) and EU actors. It focuses on the crises between Russia and Georgia in 2008 and the civil war in Libya of 2011. The article argues that states often converged in their positioning on a wide range of issues, even in moments of crisis. However, it also reveals that they remain in control of the timing of their statements and that EU actors were weak. This paper puts forth a novel tool to assess European foreign policy in times of crisis, it provides empirical data on the subject and highlights the importance of different types of issues in the assessment of commonality.
US Transatlantic Leadership after Iraq
2015
with Jonathan Paquin
This article explores whether the United States has been able to exert transatlantic leadership since its head-on diplomatic collision with several European capitals over the 2003 Iraq war. Considering that the decision to invade Iraq was made by the Bush administration, this article also explores whether there has been consistency between the Bush and Obama administrations over transatlantic leadership. This analysis provides qualitative and quantitative evidence leading to four main conclusions. Firstly, US leadership has endured in the post-Iraq era. Secondly, in most cases, France and Britain have aligned their diplomatic positions with those of the United States. Thirdly, the analysis confirms that there is a special Anglo-American relationship. Fourthly and lastly, there has been consistency between the Bush and Obama administrations, with the exception of the US response to the Libyan crisis, which suggests the emergence of a US ‘leading from behind’ transatlantic strategy.
Shedding Light on Canada’s Foreign Policy Alignment
2013
With Jonathan Paquin
The purpose of this article is to explore the issue of alignment in Canadian foreign policy. The main research question is whether Canada’s responses to foreign crises aligned with those of its allies, and if so, which allies and why. The study tests four major theoretical perspectives that could explain Canada’s behaviour: continentalism, transatlantism, the Anglosphere argument and unilateralism. The article assesses these propositions by focusing on and comparing Canada’s official declarations to those of the United States, France and Britain to six foreign crises that occurred between 2004 and 2011. Second, the analysis identifies whether there is a difference between the Harper and Martin governments’ responses to foreign crises. The research provides quantitative and qualitative evidence suggesting that Canada’s foreign policy alignment primarily tends toward a transatlantic orientation. It also shows that the Harper government was less in line with Washington than was the previous Liberal government of Paul Martin, which challenges the conventional wisdom of Canadian foreign policy.
