Giải thích chương trình nghị sự quốc tế: Khung và quyền lực trong chính trị bởi Steven Barry Rothman

EXPLAINING THE INTERNATIONAL AGENDA: FRAMES AND POWER IN POLITICS by STEVEN BARRY ROTHMAN A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Political Science and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2009 11 University of Oregon Graduate School Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by: Steven Rothman Title: "Explaining the International Agenda: Frames and Power in Politics" This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in the Department of Political Science by: Ronald Mitchell, Chairperson, Political Science Craig Parsons, Member, Political Science Lars Skalnes, Member, Political Science Jean Stockard, Outside Member, Planning Public Policy & Mgmt and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate School for the University of Oregon. September 5, 2009 Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon Libraries. 111 An Abstract of the Dissertation of Steven B. Rothman for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science to be taken September 2009 Title: EXPLAINING THE INTERNATIONAL AGENDA: FRAMES AND POWER IN POLITICS Approved: Ronald B.

Mitchell The use of rhetoric to frame policy issues often influences the amount of attention countries pay to international issues and the level of support for those issues. Often, domestic and international actors present different descriptions of policy issues in order to advance their own views and change the international agenda. Despite frequent attempts to change the international agenda and the importance of agendas for policy formation, our understanding of the factors that contribute to why particular issues get international attention is limited. This project develops a theoretical understanding of the development of the international agenda, how issues on that agenda are framed, and why agendas change over time.

The project contributes to international relations theory by understanding the factors responsible for increasing attention to issues, and the factors that influence how states define the problems on the international agenda that may eventually become part of international treaties and organizations. The project redefines agendas through a IV constructivist approach where individuals interpret real phenomena through frames. Rhetoric's influence on agenda changes described in this project also demonstrates a mechanism through which the soft power of attraction changes international outcomes. The project takes a positivist approach to analyzing constructivist and realist causes of agenda changes.

The project tests specific implications of these theories of international agenda development and issue framing by examining the case of international efforts to address whaling. The project demonstrates the importance of polarity in enabling changes in attention from security to non-security issues and the importance of rhetoric in causing changes in issue frames. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Steven Barry Rothman PLACE OF BIRTH: Buffalo, New York DATE OF BIRTH: May 14,1977 GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Political Science, September 2009, University of Oregon Master of Science, Political Science, 2006, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, Political Science and Economics, 1999, University of Delaware AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: International Relations Research Design and Methodology Decision Making PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Instructor, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2007-2009 Research Assistant, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2007-2008 Teaching Assistant, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2006-2008 Research Project Manager, Ronald B. Mitchell, Eugene, Oregon 2004-2007 Program Coordinator and Academic Advisor, Office of International Affairs, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2004 VI GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS: Rozanne Enerson Junker Scholarship Award, University of Oregon, 2007, 2008 Charles A.

Reed Graduate Fellowship Award, University of Oregon, 2008 John L. Luvaas Fellowship in Arts and Sciences, University of Oregon, 2006-2007 Institute on Qualitative Research Methods Fellowship, University of Oregon, 2006 PUBLICATIONS: Duggan, E. Peak oil: Will we see it coming? Register Guard, p. Comparatively evaluating potential dissertation and thesis projects.

PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(2),367-369. Understanding data quality through reliability: A comparison of data reliability assessment from three treaty datasets. International Studies Review, 9(3),437-456. International agreement coding manual: Formatted for coders, trainers, and trainees (version 1.

from http://iea.edu/pages/CodingManual.pdf VB ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project benefited from the extremely valuable assistance and advice from my dissertation committee: Ronald Mitchell, Lars Skalnes, Craig Parsons, Jean Stockard, and Bob O'Brien. I would specifically like to thank Jean Stockard for her generosity and flexibility. I am especially grateful to Ronald Mitchell for his tolerance, patience, constant engagement, rapid responses, and valuable critical feedback to improve all my work and advancement in academia. I would not have been as successful without Ron's instrumental feedback and willingness to serve as my mentor, critic, and advisor.

I also appreciate the help John Orbell has provided, his always valuable support, and advice on navigating the complexities of academia. Various conference panelists and anonymous reviewers provided important feedback for this project. I appreciate assistance from the presenters at the Institute on Qualitative Research Methods, Frank Alcock, Jennifer Bailey, Elizabeth Bloodgood, Michael Cairo, Charli Carpenter, Charles Chester, Anne Marie Clark, Michael Dyer, Charlotte Epstein, Christopher Gore, William Muck, Kate O'Neill, MJ Peterson, Jack Porter, Stuart Shulman, Joshua Stapel, DG Webster, Inger Weibust, others on the GEP- ED listserv, and the graduate students and faculty at the University of Oregon. I would also like to give gratitude to my family who have listened to my monologues on frames and constructions with skepticism and helped me clarify my argumentation.

Finally, I express my deepest appreciation to Reiko, without whom I V111 would have never had the strength and will to complete this project, for all her sacrifices and assistance to make this project possible. IX In Memory of Nathan Rothman x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 Why Is the International Agenda Important? 6 Why Are Frames and Non-State Actors Important? 14 Project Methodology. CONCEPTUALIZING THE INTERNATIONAL AGENDA AND ISSUE FRAMES 25 What Is the International Agenda? ." 26 Defining Issue Importance 32 J\Jumber of States 33 Strength of States 35 Depth of Concern 36 What Is an Issue? 39 What Are Frames? 42 Frame Types: Umecognized, Contested, and Dominant.

46 What Is the Content of Frames? 50 Conclusions 58 III. CAUSES OF CHANGES IN THE INTERNATIONAL AGENDA 60 Why Does the International Agenda Change? 62 Material Causes of Changes in the International Agenda 63 Issue Importance and State Interest 64 Power Distribution and Contestation and Dominance over the International Agenda 68 Rhetorical Causes of Changes in the International Agenda 71 Blame and Causal Characteristics 73 Victimization and Consequence Characteristics 74 International Exposure 76 Xl Chapter Page Rhetoric Content. 83 Strategic Use of Rhetoric and Rhetorical Entrepreneurs. INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WHALING: ISSUE EMERGENCE.

108 International Attention to Whaling. 109 On and Off the Agenda (1500 - 1944). 110 Sustained Interest in Whaling (1944 - 2008). 118 Security Issues Dominate the International Agenda.

121 Non-Material Hypotheses. 125 Naming and Blaming. 126 Naming and Victimization. 136 Timing and Magnitude.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WHALING: FRAME CHANGES. 146 International Whaling Frames. 146 Whaling Exploitation Frame. 148 Whaling Management Frame.

154 Whaling Preservation Frame. 161 Non-Material Hypotheses. 165 Connections to Discourse and Culture. 174 Rh et onca.

179 xu Chapter Page VI. SUMMATION AND CONCLUSIONS 182 Contributions to International Agenda Research. 183 Understanding Changes in the International Agenda 187 Changes in Issue Attention on the Agenda 187 Changes in Frames 190 Rhetoric as a Mechanism of Soft Power Influence 195 Some Caveats of this Project 199 After the Moratorium 202 Further Questions. NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE DATA 210 B.

GOOGLE NEWS SEARCH DATA. 225 REFERENCES 227 Xlll LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Issue Concept Diagram 52 2. International Whaling Commission Membership 119 3.

States and Whaling in the New York Times 130 4. Country Specific Blame Sparklines (1920-1946, 2 year intervals) 131 5. Percentage of Country Blame in the New York Times 134 6. Country Specific Blame Spark1ines (1970-1980, 2 year intervals) 135 7.

Whaling Quotas and the Moratorium 161 XIV LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Sample Illustration of Dominant Frames in International Politics. Examples of Causes and Consequences of the 2003 Iraq War 56 3. Summary of Agenda Changes for Whaling 120 4.

World Power Polarity and the International Agenda 123 5. Frame Changes in Whaling 148 6. Whaling Contestation and Polarity 162 7. Frequency of Whaling Articles in the New York Times by Decade 211 8.

New York Times Article Data 211 9. Codes for Non-State Actors ofInterest in New Yark Times Text 224 10. Google News Search Article Count (1920-] 946, 2-Year Intervals). Google News Search Article Count (1970-1980, 2-Year Intervals).

226 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION What accounts for the emergence of some issues on the international agenda and not others? Why does a given issue emerge when it does, rather than earlier or later? What accounts for changes in perceptions of an issue on the international agenda? At any time, a large number of international issues compete for attention from governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations or advocacy groups. We see news of declining polar bear populations, potential water shortages, conflict in Afghanistan, genocide in Sudan, North Korea nuclear tests, and many other issues. Sometimes these issues attract a great deal of attention from advocacy groups, international organizations, or states, and other times these issues are virtually ignored by one or all of these actors. Before 1970, the international community paid very little attention to issues of environmental protection, yet today, it is one ofthe more prominent issues on the international agenda with approximately 961 international treaties, of which approximately 76% were created after 1970 (Mitchell, 2003a).

Violence in Burundi between Rutu and Tutsi in 1972 received very little attention from the international community, but similar violence between Rutu and Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 received worldwide attention eventually leading to a declaration of genocide and the formation of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the violence. Even when issues appear on the agenda, actors may perceive them very differently. In 2003, the United States and the Coalition ofthe Willing invaded Iraq with 2 the intention of changing the regime and ousting sitting head of state, Saddam Hussein. Much of the world looked at the events leading up to the second Iraq conflict in 2003 with very different eyes.

The United States saw a rogue regime, frequently defying international sanctions and resolutions placed by the UN prohibiting weapons of mass destruction. Some European states saw a weak Iraqi regime in need of more time to demonstrate its willingness to abide by rules of the international community. The account by the United States changed several times as descriptions moved from a state developing weapons of mass destruction, to a state that had the potential for weapons of mass destruction, and eventually to an oppressive regime. Sometimes, as in the case of Iraq, perceptions of the issue change over time or differ between actors.

Other times actors might agree on perceptions of international issues but differ in their attention to such issues. This project seeks to understand the factors responsible for changes in the international agenda. Two aspects of the international agenda require explanation: issue importance and issue perception. To explain issue importance and issue emergence this project uses variables such as polarity and concern over security and the use of rhetoric to influence perceived issue importance.

These variables are rooted in materialist and constructivist theories from international relations combined with theories from the social movement literature. As part of understanding why issues become part of the international agenda, this project seeks to understand the influence of rhetoric and words on the international 3 agenda. Can words influence state interest in international issues, creating interest or increasing importance of issues? Can words influence perceptions of issues on the international agenda? Under what conditions might words successfully change issue perception or issue importance for states?