¹ Vedi come esempi: Hartmann, F., The Relations of Nations, New York, MacMillan, 1957 (I ed.); Mills, L. & McLaughlin, C., World Politics in Transition, New York, Holt, 1956; Padelford, N. & Lincoln, G., International Politics: Foundations of International Relations, New York, MacMillan, 1954; Wolfers, A., Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1962; Wright, Q., The Study of International Relations, New York, Appleton Century Croft, 1955.Google Scholar

² Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W. & Sapin, B., Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1954, ristampato dagli stessi autori in un volume arriechito di altri saggi dal titolo Foreign Policy Decision-Making. An Approach to the Study of International Politics, New York, Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar

³ Robinson, J. A. & Snyder, R. C., Decision-Making in International Politics , in Kelman, H. (ed.), International Behavior. A Social-Psychological Analysis, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965, pp. 435–463; Snyder, R. C. & Robinson, J. A., National and International Decision-Making, New York, Institute for International Order, 1961.Google Scholar

⁴ Duroselle, J. B. (ed.), La politique étrangère et ses fondements, Paris, Colin, 1954; Marshall, C. B., The Limits of Foreign Policy, New York, Holt & Co., 1954; Halle, L., Civilization and Foreign Policy, New York, Harper, 1955.Google Scholar

⁵ Snyder, R. C. & Paige, G. D., The U.S. Decision to Resist Aggression in Korea: the Application of an Analytical Scheme , in « Administrative Science Quarterly », III (1958), pp. 341–378, p. 347; anche in Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W. & Sapin, B. (eds.), Foreign Policy Decision-Making, cit., pp. 206–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Rosenau, J., The Premises and Promises of Decision-Making Analysis , in Charlesworth, J. (ed.), Contemporary Political Analysis, New York, Free Press, 1967, pp. 189–211, tradotto in italiano come Premesse e Prospettive di Analisi nella Formazione delle Decisioni, in Teoria e metodi in scienza politica. Bologna, Il Mulino, 1971, pp. 255–279.Google Scholar

⁷ Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W. & Sapin, B., Foreign Policy Decision-Making, cit., p. 96: « The number of participants may range from a single member to large bodies such as legislatures ».Google Scholar

⁸ Brecher, M., Steinberg, B. & Stein, J., A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behavior , in « Journal of Conflict Resolution », XVIII (1969), pp. 75–101; Burton, J., System, States, Diplomacy and Rules, London, Cambridge University Press, 1968.Google Scholar

⁹ Rosenau, J. N., Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy , in Farrell, B. (ed.), Approaches to Comparative and International Politics, Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1966, pp. 27–92.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Frankel, J., Towards a Decision-Making Model in Foreign Policy , in « Political Studies », VII (1959), pp. 1–11, e The Making of Foreign Policy. An Analysis of Decision-Making, London, Oxford University Press, 1963; Robinson, J. A. & Snyder, R. C., Decision-Making in International Politics, cit.Google Scholar

¹¹ Eayrs, J., The Art of the Possible. Government and Foreign Policy in Canada, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1961.Google Scholar

¹² Buck, P. W., The United Kingdom , in Buck, P. W. & Travis, M. B. (eds.), Control of Foreign Relations in Modern Nations, New York, Norton & Co., 1957, pp. 237–300; Epstein, L. D., British Foreign Policy , in Macridis, R. C. (ed.), Foreign Policy in World Politics, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1967, pp. 30–61; Frankel, J., op. cit., 1963; Negri, G., La Direzione della Politica Estera nelle Grandi Democrazie. Inghilterra e Stati Uniti, Milano, Giuffrè, 1964.Google Scholar

¹³ Beloff, M., New Dimensions in Foreign Policy, A Study in Britain Administration Experience, 1947–1959, New York, MacMillan, 1961; Bishop, D. G., The Administration of Foreign Affairs, Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1961; Vital, D., The Making of British Foreign Policy, in « Political Quarterly », XXXIX (1968), pp. 255–268; Rose, S. E., The Foreign Policy of Britain , in Black, J. E. & Thompson, K. W. (eds.), Foreign Policies in a World of Change, New York, Harper & Row, 1963, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Eayers, J., op. cit. ; Miller, J. D. B., The Four Original Dominions in the Commonwealth of Nations, in Buck, P. W. & Travis, M. B. (eds.), op. cit. , pp. 301–398; Eayers, J., The Foreign Policy of Canada , in Black, J. E. & Thompson, K. W. (eds.), op. cit. , pp. 673–698.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Si veda un esempio in Cole, W. S., Senator Key Pittman and American Neutrality Policies, 1933–40 , in « Mississippi Valley Historical Review », XLVI (1960), pp. 644–662.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Travis, M. B., The United States of America, in Buck, P. W. & Travis, M. B. (eds.), op. cit. , pp. 121–168; Dahl, R. A., Congress and Foreign Policy, New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1950; Negri, G., op. cit.; Carroll, H. N., The House of Representatives and Foreign Affairs, Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1966 (rev. ed.); Chiperfield, R. B., The Committee of Foreign Affairs, in « The Annals », 289 (Sept. 1953), pp. 73–83; Farnsworth, D. N., The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Urbana, The University of Illinois Press, 1961; Robinson, J. A., Congress and Foreign Policy-Making, Homewood, The Dorsey Press, 1967 (rev. ed.); Wiley, A., The Committee on Foreign Relations, in « The Annals » 289 (Sept. 1953), pp. 58–65; Hilsman, R., The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs, New York, Harper & Row, 1971.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Scalapino, R. A., The Foreign Policy of Modern Japan, in Macridis, R. C. (ed.), op. cit. , pp. 270–311; Seki, Y., The Foreign Policy of Japan, n Black, J. E. & Thompson, K. W. (eds.), op. cit., pp. 517–548.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cot, P., Les Institutions , in Hamon, L. (ed.), L'élaboration de la politique étrangère, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1969, pp. 119–126; Stuart, G. H., France , in Buck, P. W. & Travis, M. B. (eds.), op. cit., pp. 503–554; Duroselle, J. B., The Foreign Policy of France , in Black, J. E. & Thompson, K. W. (eds.), op. cit., pp. 57–88; Deutsch, K. W. & Edinger, L. J., Foreign Policy of the German Federal Republic , in Macridis, R. C., (ed.), op. cit., pp. 102–155.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Negri, G., La direzione e il controllo democratico nella politica estera , in La politica estera della Repubblica italiana, a cura di Bonanni, M., Milano, Comunità, 1967, pp. 721–800; Negri, G. e Ungari, P., Politica estera ed opinione pubblica nell'esperienza delle Commissioni, in « Rassegna Parlamentare », IV (1962), pp. 546–566.Google Scholar

²⁰ Per aspetti di questa problematica si vedano: Negri, G., La direzione della politica estera…, cit.; Cheever, D. S. & Haviland, H. F., American Foreign Policy and the Separation of Powers, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1952; Dahl, R., Congress and Foreign Policy, cit.; Waltz, K. N., Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics, Boston, Little, Brown, 1967; Jewell, M. E., Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy, Lexington, University of Kentucky Press, 1962.Google Scholar

²¹ Hilsman, R., Congressional-Executive Relations and the Foreign Policy Consensus , in « American Political Science Review », LII (1958), pp. 725–744 e The Foreign Policy Consensus: an Interim Research Report, in « Journal of Conflict Resolution », III (1959), pp. 361–382; Polsby, N. W., Foreign Policy and Congressional Activity. Or, Can Congress Survive the Sollicitude of its Friends? (A review), in « World Politics », XV (1963), pp. 354–359.Google Scholar

²² Chiperfield, R. B., op. cit.; Brow, B. H., Congress and the Department of State , in « The Annals », 289 (Sept. 1953), pp. 100–107; Kefauver, E., Executive-Congressional Liaison, ibidem, pp. 108–113.Google Scholar

²³ Carroll, H. N., The House of Representatives and Foreign Policy, cit.Google Scholar

²⁴ Farnsworth, D. N., op. cit., esamina l'attività della Senate Committee on Foreign Relations dal 1947 al 1956.Google Scholar

²⁵ Robinson, J. A., Process Satisfaction and Policy Approval in State Department-Congressional Relations , in « American Journal of Sociology », LXVII (1961), pp. 278–283.Google Scholar

²⁶ Scarso valore hanno altre analisi che esaminano questi rapporti senza molta sistematicità, per esempio quella di Brow, B. H., op. cit. e quella dello stesso Carroll, N. H., op. cit., cap. 15 « Relations with the Executive Branch ».Google Scholar

²⁷ I membri piú attivi della Commissione ricorrono perciò ad altre fonti. Vedi Smith, H. A., Information and Intelligence for Congress , in « The Annals », vol. 289 (Sept. 1953), pp. 114–119.Google Scholar

²⁸ La piú importante ricerca preparata su richiesta della Senate Committee of Foreign Relations è quella della Brookings Institution, The Formulation and Administration of United States Foreign Policy, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, January 13, 1960.Google Scholar

²⁹ Lasswell, H. D. & Kaplan, A., Power and Society, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950, tr. it. Potere e società, Milano, Etas Kompass, 1969.Google Scholar

³⁰ Colegrove, K., The Role of Congress and Public Opinion in Formulating Foreign Policy , in « American Political Science Review », XXXVIII (1944), pp. 956–969.Google Scholar

³¹ Kesselman, M., Presidential Leadership in Congress on Foreign Policy , in « Midwest Journal of Political Science », V (1961), pp. 284–289.Google Scholar

³² Nigro, F. A., Senate Confirmation and Foreign Policy , in « Journal of Politics », XIV (1952), pp. 281–299; Harris, J. P., The Advice and Consent of the Senate: A Study of the Confirmation of Appointments by the U.S. Senate, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1953.Google Scholar

³³ Farnsworth, D. N., op. cit. , p. 38.Google Scholar

³⁴ Baldwin, D. A., Congressional Initiative in Foreign Policy , in « Journal of Politics », XXVIII (1966), pp. 754–773.Google Scholar

³⁵ Baldwin fa suo, cioè, il concetto di influenza elaborato da Dahl, R. A., Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1963, tr. it. Introduzione alla scienza politica, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1970² .Google Scholar

³⁶ Congress and Foreign Policy-Making. A Study in Legislative Influence and Initiative, Homewood, The Dorsey Press, 1967 rev. ed. (I ed. 1962), e The Monroney Resolution: Congressional Initiative in Foreign Policy-Making, New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1959.Google Scholar

³⁷ Tipo di proposta presentata; appartenenza del proponente alla Commissione; il proponente è presidente della commissione; il proponente appartiene al partito di maggioranza; il proponente introduce piú progetti; appoggio governativo.Google Scholar

³⁸ Action o rule-for-action; affari interni, esterni o amministrativi; riguardo a stati alleati, non-alleati o neutrali; carichi finanziari.Google Scholar

³⁹ Baldwin, D. A., op. cit. , p. 758.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Si ricorderà il clamoroso rifiuto del Senato di concedere fondi per la continuazione della guerra (1° dic. 1970).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Buckwalter, B. W., The Congressional Concurrent Resolution: a Search for Foreign Policy Influence , in « Midwest Journal of Political Science », XIV (1970), pp. 434–458.Google Scholar

⁴² Congress and Foreign Policy-Making, cit.Google Scholar

⁴³ The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, cit.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Robinson, come abbiamo detto, intende cosí trovare le forme dell'influenza del legislativo in genere; ma individua anche le forme dell'influenza all'interno stesso del corpo legislativo: cioè quale membro della Senate Committee of Foreign Relations ha piú influenza degli altri, quali sono le caratteristiche personali che pongono un membro della Commissione in posizioni di vantaggio rispetto agli altri membri.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ « …more is needed than simple tabulations for particular representative bodies or simple correlations among one or more of the characteristics surveyed », cosí Wahlke, J. C. in una rassegna critica sull'argomento: Behavioral Analyses of Representative Bodies , in Ranney, A. (ed.), Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1962, pp. 173–190. Sullo stesso argomento vedi la discussione sull' « American Behavioral Scientist » tra Halperin, M., Is the Senate's Foreign Relations Research Worthwile?, « A.B.S. », IV (1960), pp. 21–24, e Robinson, J. A., Another Look at Senate Research on Foreign Policy, in « American Behavioral Scientist », IV (1960), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Distribuzione geografica; tempo di appartenenza alla commissione; appartenenza partitica; età; anno di elezione al Congresso, ecc.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Wahlke, J. C., op. cit. , pp. 175–179. Sui rapporti tra gruppi di pressione e membri delle Commissioni Affari Esteri qualcosa può essere trovato in Burdette, F. L., Influence of Non-Congressional Pressures of Foreign Policy , in « The Annals », 289 (Sept. 1953), pp. 92–99; Fuchs, L. H., Minority Groups and Foreign Policy, in « Political Science Quarterly », LXXIV (1959), pp. 161-172; Cohen, B. C., The Influence of Non-Governmental Groups on Foreign Policy-Making, Boston, World Peace Foundation, 1959.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Questa tecnica di analisi è ormai ampiamente conosciuta. L'analisi fattoriale dei roll-call votes permette la scoperta delle diverse dimensioni sottostanti ciascuna presa di posizione. Le opere sull'argomento sono numerose; tra le principali: MacRae, D., Dimensions of Congressional Voting, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1958; Wahlke, J. & Eulau, H. (eds.), Legislative Behavior, Glencoe, Free Press, 1959; Anderson, L. F. et al., Legislative Roll-Call Analysis, Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1966; Grumm, J. G., A Factor Analysis of Legislative Behavior, in « Midwest Journal of Political Analysis », VII (1963), pp. 336–356. Ai nostri fini ha piú importanza l'analisi di Wood, D., Issue-Dimension in a Multi-Party System: the French National Assembly and European Unification, in « Midwest Journal of Political Science », VIII (1964), pp. 255–276, che dimostra l'applicabilità dell'analisi fattoriale alle dichiarazioni di voto per quei sistemi in cui i partiti devono essere trattati come una unità per la forte disciplina di partito. Piú sofisticata, sempre sullo stesso argomento, è l'analisi di Kanter, A., The European Defense Community in the French National Assembly: a Roll-Call Analysis, in « Comparative Politics », III (1970), pp. 203–228. Sul Parlamento Italiano esiste un'analisi di contenuto, potremo dire di tipo ancora « artigianale », che esamina alcuni campioni di interventi di due gruppi parlamentari nelle prime tre legislature. Uno degli aspetti esaminati riguarda un argomento di politica estera: la discussione sul Patto Atlantico (marzo 1949). Avanzini, B., Comunisti e democristiani nel Parlamento italiano. Analisi di contenuto di un campione di interventi nelle prime tre Legislature, in « Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia », IX (1968), pp. 81–116.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Jewell, M. E., Evaluating the Decline of Southern Internationalism through Senatorial Roll-Call Votes , in « Journal of Politics », XXI (1959), pp. 624–646.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Farnsworth, D. N., op. cit. , pp. 153–155, e A Comparison of the Senate and its Foreign Relations Committee on Selected Roll-Call Votes , in « Western Political Quarterly », XIV (1961), pp. 168–175.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Russett, B. M., International Communication and Legislative Behavior: the Senate and the House of Commons , in « Journal of Conflict Resolution », V (1962), pp. 291–307.Google Scholar

⁵² Rosenau, J. N., Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy, cit.Google Scholar

⁵³ Sia qui detto per inciso che le competenze delle Commissioni Parlamentari italiane sono — a guardare i regolamenti — formalmente estese.Google Scholar