ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to answer the following four questions using Italy as a case study: (A) does populism represent, in the realm of foreign policy, a substantive rupture with its predecessors? (B) Are there differences between left-wing and right-wing populists in the realm of foreign affairs? (C) In what ways do domestic institutions constrain or enable populist action in the international arena? (D) Are international opportunities and constraints, especially ones which derive from a country’s geopolitical position in the international system, an important determinant of populist foreign policy? General conclusions derived from the Italian case are that populist foreign policy does represent a substantive rupture with the international political orientations of traditional parties; that there are some differences between left-wing and right-wing populists in the realm of international affairs but that their similarities are more important; domestic institutions only partially constrain populists’ foreign policy; and that structural international pressures are an important determinant of populist foreign policy. Another general conclusion is that populist governments among medium- or weaker-sized states use “soft balancing” as a tool of foreign policy.

摘要

本文的目的是以意大利为案例研究来回答以下四个问题：(A) 在外交政策领域，民粹主义是否代表了与其前辈的实质性决裂？(B) 左翼民粹主义者和右翼民粹主义者在外交领域是否存在差异？(C) 国内机构如何限制或促成国际舞台上的民粹主义行动？(D) 国际机会和制约因素，尤其是来自一国在国际体系中的地缘政治地位的机会和制约因素，是否是民粹主义外交政策的重要决定因素？从意大利案例得出的一般结论是，民粹主义外交政策确实代表与传统政党的国际政治取向的实质性决裂；左翼民粹主义者和右翼民粹主义者在国际事务领域存在一些差异，但更重要的是他们的相似之处；国内制度只是部分地限制了民粹主义者的外交政策；结构性国际压力是民粹主义外交政策的重要决定因素。另一个普遍的结论是，中等或较弱国家中的民粹主义政府使用“软平衡”作为外交政策的工具。