ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews the state of the art in research on mistakes and failures in International Relations, using the distinction between “objectivist” and “interpretivist” approaches as the organizing principle. Objectivist approaches conceive of mistakes as exogenously given phenomena which are characterized by the non-achievement of objective criteria for policy success or policymakers’ failure to meet self-declared objectives. By contrast, interpretivist approaches emphasize the inherently constructed nature of mistakes and failures: a decision or a policy is a mistake if it is discursively constructed and comes to be viewed as such. While suggesting quite different conceptualizations, both approaches have led to important insights on the causes (or reasons) and the consequences of mistakes and failures. This chapter first juxtaposes objectivist and interpretivist conceptualizations of mistakes and failures in International Relations. Second, it summarizes important findings of objectivist and interpretivist research on the causes of – or reasons for – mistakes and failures in foreign policy and international relations. Third, it reviews major objectivist and interpretivist insights into the political consequences of mistakes and failures. The chapter concludes by stressing that a plurality of objectivist and interpretivist approaches to the study of mistakes and failures in International Relations is analytically useful and should be valued.
