Decision-Making in International Relations 2104-L-D3DESM

This course explores the issue of decision-making processes in international relations. It analyzes the nature and specificity of international decisions and their differences from domestic decision-making processes. It also examines the influence of related research disciplines, such as management studies, political and administrative studies, economics, psychology, cultural studies, international law, and security studies, on the construction of the research field of international relations in relation to decision-making processes.

Three thematic blocks define areas of analysis, which have been constructed asymmetrically, in accordance with the logic of avoiding duplication of curricular content within other subjects in the international relations program.

The main thematic block covers individual decision-making and addresses the curricular gap in the psychology of international relations and biopolitics. Subsequently, the block devoted to collective decision-making allows for analysis and reflection on the mechanisms and pathologies of small decision-making groups, with particular emphasis on group roles, including the role of the leader. Finally, the topic of international institutional decisions has been briefly outlined. These, on a broader scale, will be the content of courses focused on European integration and international organizations in their broadest sense.
This course requires students to be actively involved throughout the semester. Student Workload Balance
Contact Hours: Participation in in-class tutorials – workload: 30 hours
Contact Hours: Participation in consultations – workload: 3 hours
Independent Work: Studying literature and preparing for current classes – workload: 45 hours
Independent Work: Teamwork, preparing a simulation of an international decision at the end of the course – workload: 10 hours
Independent Work: Group Homework – workload: 3 hours
Independent Work: Individual presentation on one of the subject topics preceded by a literature analysis – workload: 6 hours
Independent Work: Individual homework based on a documentary film in class – workload: 3 hours

TOTAL STUDENT WORKLOAD (hours): 100 hours
NUMBER OF ECTS CREDITS: 4.0 ECTS

Term 2025Z:

I. The essence of the decision
a. Praxeological. Projection of The Fog of War document and discussion - what this course is for.
b. Ontologically. Decision (event) or deciding (process) - that is, how to define an object. Man or institution, individual or group - how to define a decision-maker.
c. Epistemological. Strictly or humanistically - that is, the place of the problem of decision making in the spectrum of sciences. Descriptive or prescriptive - that is, whether the function of decision-making theory is to indicate what it is or should be like. Paradigmatic or idiosyncratic - that is, how useful theories of MS science are in explaining and understanding decision-making, and what alternatives are there.
d. Analytically. Structure or agent, micro or macro - that is, with overt and hidden effects of selecting the level of analysis for decision making research. Statistics and models or case studies - i.e. the results of formal, quantitative and qualitative methods in the analysis of decision making.
II. Unit deciding
a. Rational approaches. Nominal features of rational thinking and choice in the rational actor model (RAM). Categories of utility and expected utility and their maximization; bayesism. Application of RAM: game theories - categories of Nash equilibrium, Pareto allocation efficiency; sequential games - theory of movements; strategic interaction (Schiller).
b. Cognitive views. Limited rationality (Simon) - maximization versus satisfaction. Psychology and neurobiology and the decision-making properties of the human body; consistency of judgments, attitude to risk, cognitive complexity and contra-current thinking, memory and analogical thinking (Khong), psychophysical condition and emotions and decision-making abilities. The analysis of individual decisions: the rules of selecting the objects of analysis, content analysis and (de) coding (Hermann, George) and psychobiography (Barber, Post). Heuristics and cognitive errors.
c. Hybrid shots. Cybernetic Theory (Steinbrunner); prediction theory (Tversky, Kahnemann); polyheuristic theory (Minz, Geva).
III. Group decision making
a. Structures of small decision-making groups, the role of a leader and others (e.g. mind guard, devil's advocate, delegate), selected techniques for managing the decision-making process in a small group (e.g. leadership style, group composition, agenda control, problem formatting, manipulation of information). Dynamics of small decision groups - groupthink (Janis) and newgroup (Stern) syndromes, their manifestations and consequences for decision making. A group in crisis decision making. Comparison of the way a small internal, international and supranational group is decided (EU casus).
IV. Institutional decision making
a. Bureaucratic. The role of bureaucracy in making decisions. Institutional Identity: Essentialization, "Homosexual Reproduction" and "Cohort Effects". Properties of vertical decision-making processes from problematization to implementation - inertia, logic of appropriateness and standard operating procedure (SOP). Information flow channels. Inter-bureaucratic rivalry - the so-called turf wars. The decision as a result.
b. Cultural. Understanding culture in the context of decision-making analysis: as a closed system of meanings and as a source of preferences, valuations, heuristics and ready-made decision schemes. Historical, cultural and ideological narratives about one's own international role and decision making. Cultural dimensions (Hofstede) and regularities in a given population in the sphere of decision making. Examples of the influence of cultural idiosyncrasies on the differences in decision-making methods.
c. Internal versus international and supranational. Two-level game (Putnam) and multi-level management (Marx). Multidimensional taxonomies of participants - techniques for scaling their importance for decision making. Role of political parties and pressure groups, media (CNN effect and decision-making), civil society and other internal, international and transnational actors. On the iceberg: official structures and decision-making practice in the European Union - intra- and interinstitutional (Commission procedures, co-decision, comitology).
V. Simulations

Term 2026Z:

TOTAL STUDENT WORKLOAD (hours): 100 hours
NUMBER OF ECTS CREDITS: 4.0 ECTS

Course coordinators

Term 2025Z:

Agnieszka Bógdał-Brzezińska

Term 2026Z:

Agnieszka Bógdał-Brzezińska
Michał Nadziak
Anna Wróbel

Type of course

obligatory courses

Mode

Classroom

Prerequisites (description)

The student must possess knowledge of social studies and history at the secondary school level, demonstrate the ability to critically read journalistic and scientific texts, and be able to use the IT software necessary to create texts, presentations, and posters.

Learning outcomes

After completing the course, the student will achieve the following learning outcomes:
Knowledge (W)
K_W01 – possesses advanced knowledge of key facts, phenomena, and issues in international relations, with a focus on decision-making processes
K_W02 – identifies, at an advanced level, the methods and theories that explain decision-making processes in international relations
K_W07 – recognizes and understands, at an advanced level, the conditions governing professional activity related to decision-making processes in international relations
Skills (U)
K_U01 – is able to correctly interpret the national, regional, and global context of decision-making processes
K_U02 – uses specialized terminology to diagnose and evaluate international decision-making processes
K_U04 – plans and organizes individual research work and collaborates with others in team-based activities concerning international decision-making processes
Social Competences (K)
KK_01 – demonstrates a readiness to critically evaluate knowledge regarding international decision-making processes and shows sensitivity to ethical abuses in the use of artificial intelligence tools
KK_02 – effectively utilizes expert opinions regarding international decision-making processes
KK_07 – demonstrates readiness to responsibly perform a profession related to international decision-making processes

Assessment criteria

Formal requirements for course completion (conditions and achievements necessary to pass the course)
● Permissible number of absences: Mandatory attendance during the decision-making process simulation that concludes the course.
● Achieving a minimum of 51% for in-class work.
● Percentage contribution of specific activities to the final grade:
- active participation in preparing and conducting group work in the form of a decision-making process simulation – 51%
- mandatory individual homework assignment involving the analysis of the documentary film titled... Fog of War – 10%
- mandatory group homework assignment – 10%
- optional individual presentation on one of the course topics, preceded by a literature review – 10%
- optional individual participation in in-class debates tailored to the current lesson topic – up to 19%
● All forms of coursework preparation must be carried out independently and in compliance with ethical principles, intellectual property protections, and the regulations of the University of Warsaw (UW) and the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies (WNPiSM) regarding the use of AI tools (Resolution No. 14 of the University Education Council of July 13, 2020, on guidelines regarding standards and procedures in cases of preparing coursework and theses in violation of the law at the University of Warsaw; regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, the principles set out in Resolution No. 98 of the UW University Education Council of December 8, 2023, on guidelines for the use of artificial intelligence tools in the education process, and Resolution No. 29/2025 of the WNPiSM Didactic Council of May 7, 2025, on detailed rules for the use of artificial intelligence tools in the education process, apply). This means that artificial intelligence may be used, among other things, for brainstorming, creating a structure, and generating ideas to improve the work.
The final version of the work must not contain any content generated by artificial intelligence.

Absences from classes cannot be made up. Students are required to participate in the final course simulation.

Method of verifying course learning outcomes:
International decision-making simulation: 51%
K_W01 /K_W02 /K_W07 / K_U01/ K_U02/ K_U04/ KK_01/ KK_02/ KK_07
Individual homework assignment: analysis of the documentary film *The Fog of War*: 10%
K_W01 /K_U01/ K_U02/ K_U04/ KK_02
Mandatory group homework assignment: 10%
K_W02 / K_U04/ KK_01
Individual presentation on a course topic, preceded by a literature review: 10%
K_W01 /K_W02 / K_U02/ K_U04
Individual participation in in-class debates focused on the current topic of the session: up to 19%
K_W02/ K_U02/ KK_07

Practical placement

not applicable

Bibliography

Literature is provided to students in digital form by the course coordinator:

Graham T. Allison – “Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis”; Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971 – PISM II39734; 2nd Edition: London: Longman, 1999
Marijke Breuning – “Foreign Policy Analysis: a comparative introduction.”; New York, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007 – PISM II90032
Valerie M. Hudson – “Foreign policy analysis: classic and contemporary theory”; Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007 – PISM II87487
Ziemowit J. Pietraś - “Decydowanie polityczne”; Warszawa-Kraków: PWN, 2000
Steve Smith et al (ed.) – “Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases”; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008
Literatura dodatkowa:
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita – “An Expected Utility Theory of International Conflict,” American Political Science Review, 74(4), December 1980 – PISM PII247 http://schoolwires.henry.k12.ga.us/437520530889460/lib/437520530889460/Beuno_de_Mesquita_2.pdf
Daniel L. Byman, Kenneth M. Pollack – “Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In”, International Security, 25(4), 2001
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/bymanetalvol25no4.pdf
Walter Carlsnaes – “Handbook of International Relations”; London: Sage, 2003 – PISM III24858
Jerzy Ciechański – “Teorie podejmowania decyzji w polityce zagranicznej”; Polski Przegląd Dyplomatyczny 1/2006
Jacek Czaputowicz – „Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych: krytyka i systematyzacja”; Warszawa: PWN, 2008
Irmtraud N. Gallhofer, Willem E. Saris – “Foreign Policy Decision-Making: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of political argumentation”; Westport: Praeger, 1996 – PISM II82335
Irmtraud N. Gallhofer, Willem E. Saris – “Collective choice processes: a qualitative and quantitative analysis of foreign policy decision-making”; Westport: Praeger, 1996 – PISM II82856
Alexander L. George – “Presidential decision-making in foreign policy: the effective use of information and advice”; Boulder: Westview, 1980 – PISM II57222
Nehemia Geva, Alex Mintz (ed.) – „Decision-making on war and peace: the cognitive-rational debate”; Boulder: Lynn Rienner, 1997 – PISM II84325
Patrick J. Haney – “Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises. Presidents, Advisers and the Management of Decision Making”; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002
Paul ‘t Hart, Erik K. Stern, Bengt Sundelius (ed.) – “Beyond groupthink: political group dynamics and foreign policy-making”; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1997 – PISM II85794
Robert Jervis – “Perception and misperception in international politics”; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965 – PISM II48058
Yueng Foong Khong – “Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965”; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992 – Google Books
Bahgat Korany – “How foreign policy decisions are made in the Third World: a comparative analysis”; Boulder, London: Westview, 1986 – PISM II85731
Alex Mintz (ed.) – “Integrating cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy decision making”; New York, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002 – PISM II87450
Richard E. Neustadt, Ernest R. May – “Thinking in time: the uses of history for decision makers”; New York & London: The Free Press, 1986 – PISM II85846
Robert D. Putnam – „Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games”; International Organization, 42(3), Summer, 1988 http://hpeb08.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/putnam.pdf
Christian Reus-Smit, Duncan Snidal (ed.) – “The Oxford Handbook of International Relations”; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 – PISM III25462
Herbert Simon – “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science” American Political Science Review, 79(2), June 1985 – PISM PII247
http://users.polisci.wisc.edu/schatzberg/ps855/Simon1985.pdf
Paweł Soroka – “Teorie podejmowania decyzji w amerykańskiej nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych”; Warszawa: COM SNP, 1987 – PISM II55263
Jonathan B. Stein – “From H-bomb to Star Wars: the politics of strategic decision-making”; Lexington & Toronto: Lexington Books, 1984 – PISM II53989
Stephen G. Walker – “Role theory and foreign policy analysis”; Durham: Duke, 1987 – PISM II85515
Thomas C. Wiegele – “Leaders under stress: a psychophysiological analysis of international crises”; Durham: Duke, 1985 – PISM II85755
Steve A. Yetiv – “Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making & the Persian Gulf War”; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004

Term 2025Z:

Notes

Term 2026Z: