Convention All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES URL: http://www.isanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p254331_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Mezzell, Ann. "Public Opinion and Post-Cold War Foreign Policy: An Assessment of Elite Considerations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-05-23 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p254331_index.html>

Mezzell, A. M. , 2008-03-26 "Public Opinion and Post-Cold War Foreign Policy: An Assessment of Elite Considerations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA <Not Available>. 2009-05-23 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p254331_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: Though the Almond-Lippmann consensus has been largely debunked, events of the post-Cold War era may pose serious challenges to the now commonplace acceptance of politicians’ attentiveness to the voice of the “rational public.” The past fifteen years have witnessed a shift from traditional military pursuits to less conventional operations; from direct interstate conflicts to more nebulous forms of third-party intervention, such as state-building. Intervention experts suggest that the difficulties associated with undertakings in developing world hot-spots - lengthy time commitments, unpredictable casualty rates, shifting objectives, and concern for the relevance of such efforts to U.S. vital interests - often result in high levels of popular discontent. Yet, decision makers continue to pursue such ends, sometimes in direct opposition to public opinion. Some contend that members of the foreign policy community are now increasingly likely to sacrifice public approval for the arguably necessary humanitarian and security obligations of the current international environment. As such, I pose the following questions for research: Do foreign policy elites ignore public opinion in the face of pressing strategic and ethical considerations? Is there evidence of an actual divergence between patterns of post-Cold War public opinion and foreign policy pursuits? If so, does this represent a need for a return to the logical underpinnings of the Almond-Lippmann consensus, or is it simply reflective of the public’s adjustment to an increasingly complex international environment? Employing a comparative case study analysis of post-Cold War intervention efforts, I assess the relationship between mass opinion and foreign policy.

Public Opinions, Elite Faction and Foreign Policy in China: Anti Americanism and PRC (Re)action to the United States

Vox Populi as a Foundation for Foreign Policy Renewal? Unity and Division in Post-Bush Administration Public Opinion