The Mediatization of Foreign Policy, Political Decision-Making and Humanitarian Intervention

Douglas Brommesson is Associate Professor in Political Science at Lund University, Sweden. His main research interests include foreign policy analysis, international relations and religion and politics. Most recently, he co-edited the volume Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchanges (2015). His articles have appeared in journals such as Cooperation and Conflict, International Politics, the Journal of International Relations and Development, and the International Review of Sociology. Ann-Marie Ekengren is Professor in Political Science at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her research areas are foreign policy decision-making, international relations and party politics. Ekengren is the author of seven books and has published articles in the International Review of Sociology, International Studies Quarterly and Party Politics among others.

1. Mediatization of foreign policy decision-making 1.1 Our theoretical argument in brief1.2 Disposition of the book 2. The scope conditions of mediatized foreign policy 2.1 A process that permeates all parts of society, all the time...? 2.2 The need for a delimited understanding of mediatization <2.3 Scope conditions of mediatized foreign policy roles 182.4 CNN literature as empirical support for uncertainty as an important scope condition 2.5 Towards an analytical framework 3. Design and methodological concerns3.1 Scope conditions on a general level - empirical evidence from the UNGA 3.2 Two empirical cases - Libya and Cote d'Ivoire 3.3 Studying three actors - Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom 3.4 How to proceed with the empirical studies 4. Mediatization in the United Nations General Assembly4.1 Mediatization of process and form 4.2 Measuring indications of a mediatized foreign policy in UNGA speeches 4.3 Empirical findings from the UN General Assembly 4.3.1 Changes in foreign policy content 4.3.2 The scope conditions of mediatization of the content of politics 4.3.3 Changes in form 4.4 The relationship between form and content 4.5 Three hypothesis regarding the scope conditions of mediatization 4.6 Conclusions 5. Political logic at play in Cote d'Ivoire 5.1 The development leading to civil war in Cote d'Ivoire 5.1.1 The presidential elections in 2010 and the UNSC in 2011 5.2 Media reports on the crisis in Cote d'Ivoire 5.3 Finnish Media reports on the crisis in Cote d'Ivoire 5.4 Finnish foreign policy roles in relation to Cote d'Ivoire 5.5 Swedish media reports on the crisis in Cote d'Ivoire 5.6 Swedish foreign policy roles in relation to Cote d'Ivoire 5.7 British media reports on the crises in Cote d'Ivoire 5.8 British foreign policy roles in relation to Cote d'Ivoire 5.9 Comparative section on Finnish, Swedish and British foreign policy towards Cote d'Ivoire 5.9.1 Uncertainty 5.9.2 Identity 5.9.3 Resonance 5.10 Analytical conclusions 6. Mixed logics at play in Libya 6.1 The path towards civil war in Libya6.2 Media reports on the crisis in Libya 6.3 Finnish media reports on the crisis in Libya 6.4 Finnish foreign policy roles in relation to Libya 6.5 Swedish media reports on the crisis in Libya 6.6 Swedish foreign policy roles in relation to Libya6.7 British media reports on the crisis in Libya6.8 British foreign policy roles in relation to Libya6.9 Comparative section on Finnish, British and Swedish foreign policy toward Libya 6.9.1 Uncertainty 6.9.2 Identity6.9.3 Resonance 6.10 Analytical conclusions 7. Conclusion: towards a theory on the variation of mediatization of foreign policy7.1 Media reporting on the hostilities in Cote d'Ivoire and Libya 7.2 Foreign policy roles regarding the conflicts in Cote d'Ivoire and Libya 7.3 Media logic or political logic? 7.4 The role of scope conditions 7.5 Mediatization and foreign policy making in the future div>