In order to make an analysis, first of all it is necessary to define the object to be analysed, namely, foreign policy. Thus, "foreign policy is composed of the goals sought, values set, decisions made and actions taken by states, and national governments acting on their behalf, in the context of external relations of national societies. It constitutes an attempt to design, manage and control the foreign relations of national societies".
1 This definition highlights the ambivalence of foreign policy, due to its two dimensions:
internal and external environment. In other words, foreign policy is that part of public policy which links the state and the international environment in which the state acts.2 Thereby, decisions taken by actors on the domestic scene have an impact on external relations; but also, the international events, the external situation, influnce the foreign policy makers options. In this context, the freedom of decision which foreign policy actors have is limited, both by the internal and the external environment. Joseph Frankel identifies two dimensions which limit the decisions of actors, although in theory, foreign
1Mark Webber, Michael Smith, Foreign Policy in a Transformed World (London: Pearson, 2002), 2.
2Michael Clarke, Brian White, Understanding Foreign Policy: the Foreign Policy Systems Approach
183 policy decision environment is limitless. The first dimension is the range of interests and limitations of power of each state. The second refers to the fact that, in a specific case the decision possibilities may be more limited than those of the entire foreign policy of that state concerned. Apart from this, the environment is also limited to what the decision- makers consider relevant for a particular matter.3 In order to understand the constraints generated by the internal environment on foreign policy decision-makers it is necesary to examine factors such as the geography, population, economic resources, culture, history of that state. Foreign policy decisions are usually made in accordance with all these factors; decision-makers rarely take actions that are inconsistent with these factors.4 In what regards the external environment, it is characterized by dynamism and interdependence, to the extent that a state's foreign policy actions causes reactions from another state.
The foreign policy arena can be perceived as „the terrain on which foreign policy decisions are made and actions taken”5 Decision-making is a dynamic process that
involves choice, action and an assumption of a desired situation. However, this process also requires constant adjustment and refinement based on experience, on the continuous changing of the internal and external environment and, last but not least, on „simply the
folly of policy makers”.6 Foreign policy can also be understood as a system of individual
actions; it is based on human decisions. In this sense, foreign policy is part of human relations, of social relations. Thus, an important role in understanding certain foreign policy decisions, has the personality of the decision-maker, the image he has about a specific situation and about the impact he believes his decision will produce.7
In foreign policy analysis (FPA) is important to know how the authorities make decisions and especially, what is their specific role in the process of decision-making. According to their internal organization, states have different decision-makers in foreign policy issues. They include presidents, prime ministers, governments, coalitions, parliaments. Those authorities that have the ability to engage society's resources and the authority to make a decision that can not easily be changed are "ultimate decision units". These authorities also have the power to prevent other entities to challenge their decisions.
3Joseph Frankel, The Making of Foreign Policy. An Analisys of Decision Making (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), 3 – 4.
4James Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy: a Reader in Research an Theory (New York: The Free Press, 1969), 59 – 60.
5Mark Webber, Michael Smith, op. cit., 29.
6Ibid, 50.
184 According to the authors, there are three types of ultimate decision units: the predominant leader, a single group and multiple autonomous groups. If the final decision unit is a predominant leader, foreign policy decision is explained by the personal characteristics of the leader. Within this category, the authors distinguish between the insensitive and sensitive to context leader. The last one decides according to the advice of his counselors. In this case, foreign policy decision can not be exclusively explained by the leader's personality; it is also necessarily the knowledge of the environment in which the decision was made. When the final decision unit is a single group, the decision-making process is interactive, all group members participate to the discussions. In this situation, for FPA is important if the group can easily reach consensus. If consensus is easily reached, external elements can not influence the decision, while if consensus is difficult to achiev, group members can succumb to external pressure. In the case of the third model proposed, none of the groups can access the necessary resources without the support of all or some of the other groups. For this model to work, there should be no other superior authority with the power to modify the groups decision, or to settle differences occurred between groups. The main disadvantage of this model is that it can easily lead to deadlock. Decision-making depends on the attitude that groups have to each other.8 For the multiple autonomous groups model, the authors give the example of a government coalition. The government is composed of members of all parties in the coalition, and no party has a majority of seats in parliament, so the groups depend on each other to govern. Such a situation was found in Romania in the time period studied.