Parliament and Foreign Policy-Making Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The study discusses the role of the parliament in foreign policy-making. The role of the parliament has increased over time in light of the complexities and intertwined interests among countries and the emergence of globalization phenomenon, which has dehumanized the nature and reality of international relations, the need to deepen cooperation among the parliamentarians of countries has increased and expanding it to various fields, and hence emerged the role of parliament in foreign policy-making, so that Public Diplomacy is a substitute for government diplomacy.Method: The study is based on the institutional approach, which is one of the oldest methods used in political analysis. It stems from the study of political institutions in terms of composition and competencies. The institutional approach in its origins is due to the traditional constitutional school in the study of political systems, which was confusing the concept of state and the political system, and the latter is seen as the system of government as defined by constitutional law, i.e. the set of rules and laws governing public authorities and defining their terms of reference and functions.Results: The study concluded that parliamentary diplomacy has become a substitute for the official diplomacy and contributes side by side to the exclusion of war crises and finding the pursuit peaceful diplomatic solutions. The Public Diplomacy is a tributary of support for official diplomacy if coordinated together and the value of Public Diplomacy increases as the goals and orientations of the country's foreign policy express the values and aspirations of the people truthfully.Conclusion: The study concluded that parliaments - especially in democratic systems - play an important role in the process of foreign policy-making, and that there are external and internal factors affecting the effectiveness of the role of parliament in foreign policy. The Kuwaiti parliamentary experience reflected this development of parliamentary diplomacy and its role in foreign policy-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".