By Charis Baker

An Affirmative perspective on Resolved: In foreign policy, diplomacy is more effective than military intervention.

With a degree in political science and a special focus on foreign policy and international relations, I'm head over heels in love with this resolution. Developing and writing our sourcebook has easily been a highlight of my summer as my family can attest. There is a fantastic breadth of research on both sides and lots of possibilities for the metagame to expand throughout the fall season. We hope to take advantage of that. In order to fully grasp that potential, we'll want to break down some fundamental principles of foreign policy. 

If you want to know how to write championship cases and win rounds at the highest level of impact calculus, don’t miss the final paragraphs.

While different theories of international relations (realism, liberalism, constructivism, isolationism, interventionism) recognize various goals of foreign policy, there are a number that are universally understood. These can include principles such as national security, preservation of state sovereignty, non-proliferation, preservation of state values, regional and global peace, economic development, and more. By far the three most common theories are those we’re about to examine: realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

Realism: Anarchical Sovereignty

The three primary theories of international relations, realism, liberalism, and constructivism help understand how states operate and why they make the choices they do. At present, U.S. foreign policy, and indeed, much of modern international relations are driven by a realist approach to policy. This is the oldest and arguably most dominant theory. Columbia University Professor Jack Snyder highlights the realist approach as focusing "on the shifting distribution of power among nations" (Snyder, 2004). Additionally, realism focuses on individual state self-interest, specifically in military and economic forms. It views the international community as anarchic, that is, as having no central authority above sovereign states. It heavily purports the understanding of state sovereignty as codified in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. In this way, realism is perhaps the main strategy against globalism in modern international relations. Thus, one might conclude that from a realist approach, it is in the U.S. interest to forge strategic economic and military alliances even if the partner commits human rights violations or violates religious freedom because such alliances strengthen U.S. power and influence. This builds on the condition of anarchy because it creates the need for self-reliance to ensure survival (Waltz, 1979). Finally, realists assume that states are rational actors that are primarily concerned with power, security, and national interest.

Classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau (1948) emphasized human nature and the pursuit of power as an intrinsic feature of politics. Structural realists, particularly Kenneth Waltz (1979), argued that the international system's anarchic structure compels states to seek power as a means of maintaining security. More recently, John Mearsheimer (2001), one of the leading modern thinkers in this field, developed the theory of offensive realism, contending that states do not merely seek to survive, but aim to maximize their relative power, potentially becoming regional hegemons when possible. Diplomacy can be fundamental in this pursuit. However, as we will see in future discussions, military intervention can also be a tool exploited by realists. Mearsheimer argues that great powers are inherently revisionist, meaning that they are always looking to exploit opportunities for strategic gain. 

Because of this, a willingness to engage in good faith negotiations is vital for state actors.

This will be a strategic link for affirmative cases to build.

Stephen Walt (1985), meanwhile, developed balance-of-threat theory, refining realism by suggesting that states do not simply respond to power, but to perceived threats, which are shaped by geographic proximity, offensive capabilities, and perceived intentions. Note, this theory specifies the "threat," as a motivating factor, not exclusively the carrying out of that threat. While coercive diplomacy (commonly referred to as CD) may not always maintain the highest rate of success, it is an option that strong affirmatives will be able to exploit for strategic mitigations and portions of impact calculus. This framework explains why weaker states sometimes align with stronger ones, a situational commonly known as bandwagoning, or why coalitions form in response to a rising hegemon. The creation of NATO or BRICS may serve to exemplify this. Similarly, the UN would be a preemptive case of bandwagoning, seeking to prevent a future uprising of Axis powers.

While it may be exploited for its own strategic benefit, Affirmatives should be aware that the realist paradigm does not value diplomacy for its own sake. Rather, it is considered a tool of advancing national interests, forming alliances, or deterring enemies. It is relatively safe to predict that this will be a major cornerstone of Affirmative argumentation. Realist logic underpinned Cold War doctrines like containment and remains evident in strategies that will be discussed in future posts, like offshore balancing.

Liberalism: Interdependence

In contrast to realism's emphasis on conflict and competition, liberalism focuses on a more optimistic outlook. While acknowledging anarchy, liberals argue that cooperation is possible through institutions, economic interdependence, and democratic governance (Keohane & Nye, 1977).

Liberals argue that states have diverse interests, deeper than power or mere survival. These include economic prosperity, rule of law, and normative alignment. Immanuel Kant theorized that a federation of liberal republics, engaged in commerce and guided by moral principles, would be more peaceful. This philosophy served as the foundation for the Democratic Peace Theory, which posits that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one another due to institutional constraints and mutual respect for liberal norms (Doyle, 1986).

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (1977) expanded liberal theory with the concept of complex interdependence, arguing that globalization and institutional ties limit the utility of military force. This could give way to an argument framing diplomacy as a foundation for interdependence, focusing on international agreements and trade normalizations.

Liberalism sees diplomacy as an essential tool for fostering peace, stability, and shared governance.

While arguments structured along these lines may largely rely on the assumption of globalist success, they do provide a clear pragmatic link to effectiveness. Under liberalism, military force is a last resort, and ideally exercised under international legal frameworks, which one could argue are the result of diplomacy. For liberals, war is often a failure of diplomacy, development, or democracy, not a necessary feature of global politics. Thus, they would largely argue that it is not effective in achieving the perceived results of foreign policy. One final note of consideration is the fact that such military intervention would be largely antithetical to the establishment of a global order.

Constructivism: Identity & Culture

Constructivism challenges the material assumptions of both realism and liberalism, emphasizing the role of ideas, identities, and social interactions in shaping international politics. It is the least common and will likely be the least influential within this debate. Constructivists argue that the international system is not merely defined by anarchy or institutions but by the meanings states assign to them. Essentially, it is a world of semantics.

Alexander Wendt (1992) famously argued that "anarchy is what states make of it," suggesting that state behavior is influenced by shared understandings, and necessitates a willingness to compromise, not reliance upon fixed interests. This also assumes that power and influence must depend on the context in which states find themselves. For instance, the United States perceives the United Kingdom's nuclear arsenal differently than North Korea's, despite their material equivalence. This is a function of identity and trust, not capabilities alone. It is heavily reliant upon the context in which the states interact. This illustrates a core, but potentially detrimental, tenant of constructivism: the understanding that while ideas matter, perhaps most of all, they can and do change over time. At times, this can be exploited to build a subjective system of beliefs.

Constructivists see diplomacy as central, not just for managing conflict, but for shaping the concepts of sovereignty, legitimacy, and cooperation. However, we must remember that these are not necessary objective standards from a constructivist view point. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) describe how "norm entrepreneurs" and transnational actors influence global behavior by promoting new expectations of behavior, such as the abolition of slavery, the rejection of colonialism, or the duty towards humanitarian intervention.

From this lens, military force is often counterproductive, particularly when it undermines emerging norms or reinforces adversarial identities. Additionally, it is seen as detrimental when it appears to destroy the culture of a state or interfere with the identity of a group. Constructivism focuses on how states can change their behavior over time through interaction, persuasion, and social engagement. Essentially, an extended process of mass assimilation.

Scope

To successfully debate this resolution, Affirmatives will need to establish a clear understanding of foreign policy. Situations pertaining to civil war or other domestic conflict could quickly become inapplicable. In addition to the scope of foreign policy, debaters should also have clear scopes of impact calculus whether pertaining to a specific timeline, likelihood, or magnitude. This will be vital to defining effectiveness. Finally, debaters should have a clear understanding of their terms. This can lead to an increased realm of argumentation, while still maintaining pertinent relevancy. For example, it would be strategic for Affirmatives to realize the usage of bilateral and multilateral negotiations, treaties and agreements, summits, mediation, arbitration, and even track II diplomacy. On the flip side, questions such as "does military intervention require an ongoing conflict?" will be pertinent to answer.

In defining conflicting frameworks, Joseph Nye's principle of "smart power," a strategic blend between hard power and soft power, is very relevant (Nye, 2008). Ideally, the soft power of diplomacy and negotiation remains the primary mechanism of interaction with foreign countries. 

From an Affirmative perspective, Nye's theory of smart power will be an asset.

Regarding soft power, Chris Brown argues in his article On Morality, Self-Interest and Foreign Policy, that self-interest and morality, as well as global interests, are not always mutually exclusive and can often be pursued in tandem (Brown, 2002). Of course, this would be the ideal of most Western foreign policy and successful diplomacy. Yet, there are times when a country's interests and values will conflict on the world stage. U.S. relations with nations like Saudi Arabia represent this. Perhaps in these times the question between diplomacy and military intervention becomes most pressing. We are, after all, examining the resolution in conflict.

Value

In this resolution, your value ought to be the primary mechanism of measuring effectiveness. Due to the nature of the resolution, most values you see may or may not be an intrinsic good. While the value is comparative and asks which side is more effective, it does not specify what they are to be effective at.

Thus, it becomes the duty of the Affirmative to define not only the most strategic value, but the most meaningful foreign policy goals and subsequently defend diplomacy as the best method of achievement.

Structure

Whether you're a novice or experienced debater, there are a number of questions that you'll want to answer when creating your contentions. We've analyzed a few here.

1. What is the policy goal that is being addressed? (Criteria)

2. How does diplomacy most effectively achieve that goal? (Conflict)

3. What are the risks of military intervention?

4. Is the result sustainable over time?

5. How does the policy choice impact the state's international standing and legitimacy?

Clear contentions will outline and answer these questions effectively. Additionally, they'll provide in-depth analysis and extension of historical and contemporary events that illustrate these arguments. The Speaking with Grace LD Sourcebook will be packed with arguments and cases that meet these criteria and take them even deeper.

While strong impact calculus is vital to any resolution, it may be especially so this fall. Not all impact claims are equal. A strategic framing and weighing of various impacts will be decisive in winning high level rounds. 

Likely, the three main areas of impact will come down to scope and scale of conflict, long-term stability, and strategic sustainability.

Diplomacy is often credited with preventing war and deescalation. The preservation of human life, protection of state sovereignty, and prevention of conflict will be vital grounds for the Affirmative to win. If the Affirmative can win these types of impact claims, they will have successfully won some of the largest magnitude impacts in this debate.

Secondly, Affirmative cases will want to impact to systemic and lasting results. Particularly stability will be strategic. While potentially playing into the hands of a globalist narrative, empirically, these types of impacts have discussed long-term predictability, cooperation, and peace. From an Affirmative perspective, military intervention will tend to erode legitimacy, push away allies, and provide incentive for arms races. Mutual interest and a potential for compromise is fundamental to this type of impact.

Finally, sustainability, or more specifically, the prevention of retaliation, will be important to win on the Affirmative side. This asks: "How likely is each side of the resolution to prevent future retaliation and escalation?" "How can harmful side effects be minimized by the Affirmative, as compared to the Negative?" The most strategic argument in this area pertains to significant ROI of diplomacy. If framed properly, there is a potential for low-cost, high-return success with diplomacy because it does not overextend military resources or provoke retaliation. Whereas military intervention would lead to prolonged engagements and unintended consequences.

While each of these areas are successful on their own, the highest level cases will exploit all three of these dimensions, and do so in comparing both sides of the resolution. This provides an interconnected, multi-layered, comparative level of impact calculus.