Written by Nice Admin
Published Sept. 18, 2025
The Architecture of Foreign Policy: Understanding Decision-Making Through Multi-Level Analysis
Introduction
Foreign policy is the strategic course of action that states adopt to engage with the international community, seeking to safeguard their national interests while navigating the complexities of global politics. These decisions—whether related to alliances, economic policies, diplomatic negotiations, or security strategies—are shaped by multiple factors, ranging from individual leadership traits to structural constraints imposed by the international system. As a result, Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) has emerged as a critical subfield of International Relations (IR), helping scholars and policymakers understand the rationale behind state actions in the global arena.
This is where Levels of Analysis serve as the building blocks of foreign policy assessment. They provide a framework to categorize the vast array of actors, themes, and influences that shape international relations. These vast array of themes, actors, and issues in global politics can quickly become overwhelming. Without a framework to separate and categorize these complexities, understanding why states act the way they do would be an insurmountable challenge. As J. David Singer (1961) argued, "without levels of analysis, the study of international relations would be an exercise in chaos, as scholars would struggle to establish coherent patterns in global affairs." By providing a structured approach, levels of analysis serve as an essential tool for researchers and practitioners, enabling them to pose viable answers to pressing foreign policy questions.
At its core, Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) seeks to unravel the complexities behind state behavior in the international arena. Every diplomatic action—whether it be the negotiation of trade agreements, participation in multilateral organizations, or engagement in conflict—is the result of intricate decision-making processes influenced by a range of factors. In his seminal work Man, the State, and War (1959), Kenneth Waltz categorizes these influences into three distinct levels of analysis: the individual level (first image), which focuses on the role of leaders and decision-makers; the state level (second image), which considers domestic institutions and political structures; and the international system level (third image), which examines how global power dynamics shape state behavior. Similarly, John T. Rourke, in International Politics on the World Stage, builds upon this framework, emphasizing that these levels serve as an essential tool for understanding and deconstructing foreign policy decisions. By applying these levels of analysis, scholars and practitioners can better assess the motivations behind a nation’s foreign policy and predict its future course in an increasingly interconnected world.
Levels of Analysis
The analysis of foreign policy operates on multiple levels, each offering a distinct perspective on the factors shaping a nation's decisions in the international arena. Also, decision-making in international relations is rarely unilateral—it can be driven by an individual leader, a group of policymakers, domestic institutions, or the broader global system. Understanding these levels is crucial in identifying the key motivations behind a state's foreign policy choices.
By dissecting foreign policy through structured levels of analysis, scholars and policymakers can gain valuable insights into the rationale behind specific diplomatic actions. These levels serve as a diagnostic tool, clarifying why certain decisions are made and which factors exert the greatest influence. They help not only in understanding historical foreign policy choices but also in predicting future state behavior.
Building upon the framework outlined by John T. Rourke, this paper explores the three primary levels of foreign policy analysis—individual, state, and system—along with their key characteristics, sub-divisions, real-world examples, and implications. This structured approach provides a comprehensive lens through which foreign policy decisions can be assessed and understood.
Decisions and actions of national leaders play a pivotal role in shaping international relations. As the UNESCO constitution aptly states, “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” This underscores the profound impact of individual decision-makers on global affairs, as their perceptions, ambitions, and biases can determine whether diplomacy prevails or conflict escalates. While states are often regarded as the primary actors in international relations, it is ultimately individual leaders, politicians, and policymakers who make foreign policy decisions, influenced by their personal traits, emotions, and strategic calculations (Hudson, 2014). While structural factors and institutional constraints certainly shape decision-making, the human element remains indispensable in understanding why states pursue specific diplomatic strategies, conflicts, or economic policies.
Cognition, Psychology, and Bias in Foreign Policy Decisions
There is a common assumption that leaders make rational, calculated decisions in foreign policy. However, cognitive psychology suggests that bias, perception, and emotions significantly influence how leaders assess threats, opportunities, and diplomatic strategies. John T. Rourke (2008) highlights several cognitive limitations that impact decision-making, including:
The Role of Individual Leaders in Foreign Policy
History provides numerous instances where the personal attributes of leaders have been instrumental in shaping the course of international relations. One of the most striking examples is Adolf Hitler, whose aggressive expansionist policies and ideological vision catalyzed World War II. While Germany’s geopolitical ambitions were certainly a factor, Hitler’s personal motivations, strategic miscalculations, and ideological fanaticism were central to the country’s war policies (Mintz & DeRouen, 2010). The individual-level analysis allows scholars to distinguish between state interests and personal ambitions, as seen in authoritarian regimes where a leader’s decisions are less constrained by institutional checks and balances.
Another compelling example is the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), during which the personal leadership style and decision-making processes of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev played a crucial role in determining whether the crisis would escalate into nuclear war. Kennedy, despite facing immense political and military pressure, chose a calculated approach, opting for diplomatic negotiations and a naval blockade rather than an immediate military strike. This decision, influenced by his personal temperament and advisory consultations, ultimately prevented a catastrophic war (Renshon & Lerner, 2011).
Donald Trump’s presidency also exemplifies how a leader’s pragmatism, direct engagement, and transactional approach can redefine a nation’s foreign policy. Trump’s America First policy has prioritized bilateral deals over multilateral agreements, using economic leverage, tariff threats, and direct diplomacy as tools of statecraft. His personalized approach to diplomacy—emphasizing leader-to-leader engagement—has influenced U.S. relations with key nations. From crossing into North Korea’s Demilitarized Zone to brokering the Abraham Accords, Trump has relied on personal rapport rather than conventional diplomatic channels.
Trump’s decision-making style also reflects cognitive biases, such as overconfidence in deal-making and reliance on direct communication. His use of social media and public declarations to engage world leaders demonstrates a departure from scripted diplomacy, making his foreign policy both dynamic and unpredictable. While past administrations operated through institutional processes, Trump’s leadership has placed greater emphasis on personal influence and immediate action. His tenure underscores the impact of individual leadership on statecraft, proving that in international relations, a leader’s personality can be just as influential as national interests.
In the context of Nepal, foreign policy has often been studied through the lens of leadership, as different rulers and prime ministers have shaped the country's international engagements based on their personal worldviews and political priorities. King Mahendra pursued a balanced foreign policy, emphasizing non-alignment and strengthening Nepal’s sovereignty, while King Birendra introduced the Zone of Peace proposal, reflecting his vision of Nepal as a neutral and independent actor in global affairs. Even in the democratic republic era, where the Prime Minister does not wield absolute power as during the Panchayat system, leadership changes have significantly influenced how foreign policy is formulated and implemented. For instance, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli's tenure saw an assertive nationalist approach, with the release of a new political map of Nepal amid boundary disputes with India, whereas others have adopted a more cautious and diplomatic stance, prioritizing bilateral negotiations and balancing ties between India, China, and the U.S. Similarly, recent debates surrounding the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact showcased how different prime ministers' positions shaped Nepal's engagement with global powers, with some viewing it as a development opportunity while others raised concerns about sovereignty. These shifts underscore the significant role of individual leadership in guiding Nepal’s foreign policy direction, despite institutional frameworks and constitutional constraints.
While individual leaders play a crucial role in shaping foreign policy, the state-level analysis examines how domestic institutions, political structures, and national interests influence a country’s diplomatic decisions. Since states are the primary actors in the international system, their internal political dynamics, bureaucratic mechanisms, and governance models significantly impact how foreign policy is formulated, implemented, and adjusted. John T. Rourke (2008) highlights that foreign policy is not solely determined by a leader’s personal vision but also by the type of government, political culture, bureaucratic interests, and public opinion that shape decision-making.
Impact of Governance on Foreign Policy
The nature of governance—whether democratic or authoritarian—affects the level of inclusivity in foreign policy formulation. In democratic systems, foreign policy decisions often involve multiple stakeholders, including legislative bodies, public opinion, political parties, and the media. In contrast, in authoritarian regimes, decision-making is highly centralized, allowing leaders to implement foreign policies with minimal opposition.
Role of Bureaucracy and Institutions
Another critical aspect of state-level analysis is the role of bureaucracy and institutional structures. In many countries, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, national security councils, and economic ministries shape foreign policy decisions by providing technical expertise, diplomatic negotiations, and long-term strategic recommendations. Bureaucratic institutions often have their own interests and influence, which can sometimes lead to internal policy struggles. A notable example is the U.S. State Department and Pentagon, which have historically held divergent views on military interventions and diplomatic strategies. Similarly, in India, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) often negotiate foreign policy priorities to align with broader national security and economic interests.
State-Level Foreign Policy in Nepal
In Nepal, foreign policy is deeply influenced by the state’s political system, domestic institutions, and geopolitical realities. As a landlocked nation, Nepal’s foreign policy has traditionally been shaped by its geopolitical position between India and China, as well as its domestic political landscape. While Nepal’s foreign policy principles—such as non-alignment and peaceful coexistence—are constitutionally defined, the implementation of these policies varies depending on the government in power.
One major factor influencing Nepal’s foreign policy at the state level is the nature of its political system. Since the transition from monarchy to a federal democratic republic, foreign policy decision-making has become more decentralized, involving the President, Prime Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and even Parliament. This shift has led to greater debate and scrutiny over foreign agreements, such as the MCC compact and China’s BRI projects. Unlike in the past, where kings had greater control over foreign policy, today’s multi-party democracy introduces competing political interests, sometimes leading to policy inconsistency. For example, while one government may embrace economic partnerships with the U.S. and China, another might prioritize closer ties with India, reflecting domestic political alignments rather than a consistent long-term strategy.
Bureaucracy also plays a key role in Nepal’s foreign policy execution. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) serves as the principal institution responsible for diplomatic engagements, treaty negotiations, and bilateral/multilateral cooperation. However, Nepal’s foreign service is often constrained by limited resources, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and a reactive rather than proactive approach to diplomacy. For instance, Nepal’s engagement with regional and international organizations has often been limited due to institutional inertia and political instability. Additionally, Nepal’s foreign policy is influenced by public opinion and nationalist sentiments, as seen in the strong domestic push for revising the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship.
Foreign policy is not solely a reflection of a state's domestic policies and national interests; it is also shaped by external constraints and global dynamics. As John T. Rourke (2008, p. 99) states, “To be successful, countries usually must make policy choices within the context of the realities of the international system.” These realities include the influence of global powers, international economic structures, military conflicts, global governance institutions, and prevailing international norms. At the system level, states operate within an anarchic international system, where no single authority governs all nations. This anarchy compels states to adopt foreign policies aimed at survival, security, and strategic advantage, often leading smaller states to pursue non-alignment or balancing strategies to navigate power asymmetries.
Global Power Structure and Foreign Policy
One key factor influencing system-level foreign policy decisions is the power structure of the international system. The distribution of power—whether unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar—significantly impacts how states interact. For example, during the Cold War, the bipolar rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union shaped global alliances, compelling many nations to align with either power bloc or adopt a non-aligned stance (Waltz, 1979). In contrast, today’s world is transitioning towards a multipolar order, with rising global powers like China and India challenging U.S. dominance. This shift influences trade policies, security agreements, and regional alliances.
Economic Interdependence and Foreign Policy
Economic interdependence also plays a crucial role in shaping system-level foreign policy decisions. The rise of globalization has increased the interconnectedness of economies, making economic policies a key component of international relations. For instance, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), aimed at enhancing global trade connectivity, has reshaped the economic strategies of many nations. As Tekdal (2017) highlights, “Policy ideas in China regarding the enhancement of connectivity between China and Europe, Africa, and the rest of Asia preceded the initiation of the BRI.” Similarly, the growing availability of oil and petroleum products in the Middle East has shaped Western foreign policies toward the region. “The most significant US policy goal in the Gulf is to maintain uninterrupted flow of oil at a reasonable price and in sufficient quantities to meet its requirements and those of its allies.” (Khan, 2001).
Influence of International Norms and Governance
International norms also influence foreign policy at the system level. Over time, the international community has developed rules and conventions that states adhere to, affecting decisions on issues like human rights, nuclear proliferation, and climate change. For instance, despite the long-standing conflict between India and Pakistan, both countries have refrained from using nuclear weapons due to international norms against nuclear warfare and mass human casualties. As Thakur (2019) states, “Delhi has stated that its nuclear arsenal will be used only as a deterrent, and Islamabad has also vowed to use the weapons only if the very existence of Pakistan as a state is at risk.” This demonstrates how normative constraints and diplomatic pressure influence state behavior in global affairs.
System-Level Foreign Policy in Nepal
For states like Nepal, system-level factors play an even greater role in shaping foreign policy. Nepal’s strategic location between two global powers, India and China, has made balancing diplomacy a necessity. While Nepal follows a non-aligned foreign policy, its engagement with both neighbors is heavily influenced by regional power dynamics and economic dependencies.
One major external factor affecting Nepal’s foreign policy is India-China competition in South Asia. Nepal’s participation in both China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and India-led regional frameworks like BIMSTEC highlights its efforts to navigate between the two powers. Additionally, international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), influence Nepal’s economic and developmental strategies, reflecting how global economic structures shape national policies.
Moreover, global security challenges impact Nepal’s foreign policy choices. As a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions, Moreover, global security challenges impact Nepal’s foreign policy choices. As a major contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions, Nepal plays an active role in global security efforts, reflecting how international obligations and global governance structures influence small states. Overall, Nepal has maintained very active participation in international organizations, both at the global and regional levels. These pursuits allow Nepal to promote its status as an active player in multilateralism, specifically through its engagement in international and regional organizations as well as its commitments to international peace through UN peacekeeping missions. Such efforts position Nepal as a supporter of international peace, multilateralism, and cooperation, despite its constraints as a small state with limited material capabilities (Chand, 2025).
Conclusion
The different levels of foreign policy analysis provide a structured framework for understanding how states navigate the complexities of international relations. From the individual level, where leaders' personalities, perceptions, and decision-making styles shape diplomatic actions, to the state level, where political institutions, governance structures, and public opinion influence policy choices, each level contributes to a more comprehensive analysis. At the system level, global power dynamics, economic interdependence, and international norms create opportunities and constraints that shape a country’s foreign engagements. Together, these levels of analysis help explain why states adopt particular foreign policy strategies and how they respond to international developments.
Foreign policy is rarely determined by a single factor; instead, it is the product of interacting influences at multiple levels. Leaders may shape decisions, but their choices are constrained by domestic institutions and external pressures from the international system. For small states, strategic adaptability and multilateral engagement provide avenues for navigating geopolitical challenges. Whether in securing national interests, maintaining diplomatic ties, or responding to global crises, states continuously adjust their foreign policies based on these levels of analysis. Understanding this layered approach is essential for analyzing the actions of states in an ever-evolving international landscape.
References
Breuning, M. (2007). Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chand, B. (2025). Nepal's status‐seeking endeavors: Between normative convergence and
geopolitical interests. Politics and Governance, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.9032
Hudson, V. M. (2014). Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory (2nd ed.).
Rowman & Littlefield.
Khan, M. N. (2001). The US policy towards the Persian gulf: Continuity and change. Strategic
Analysis, 25(2), 197-213.
Mintz, A., & DeRouen Jr., K. (n.d.). Types of Decisions and Levels of Analysis in Foreign
Policy Decision Making. In Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making (pp. 15–37).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511757761.002
Renshon, J., & Lerner, J. S. (2011). Decision‐Making, the Role of Emotions in Foreign Policy.
The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology.
Rourke, J. T. (2008). International politics on the world stage (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Rosenau, J. N. (1966). Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy. In Approaches in
Comparative and International Politics (pp. 27-92). Free Press.
Singer, J. D. (1961). The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. World Politics,
14(1), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009557
Tekdal, V. (2017). China’s Belt and Road Initiative: at the crossroads of challenges and
ambitions. The Pacific Review, 31(3), 373–390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1391864
Thakur, A. (2019, August 31). Why Neither India, Nor Pakistan, Can Risk a Nuclear War. Times
of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-neither-india-nor-
pakistan-can-risk-a-nuclear-war/articleshow/70908000.cms
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1945).
Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/constitution
Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. Columbia University Press.
Test yourself and practice for your government exam preparation from large set of questions and other resources.
