Dr Ellis Mallett
About
My research project
Reversing Course: Explaining Obama's RapprochementsWhy do foreign policies endure in conditions that should impel change? By persisting with particular strategies, states risk mounting responses disproportionate relative to the threat and overcommitting resources to situations that seldom warrant it. In adopting such an ‘overbalanced’ posture, states might also become entangled in unnecessary conflict, causing for themselves greater insecurity by worsening the original threat, increasing the risk of spiral dynamics, and fostering further instability. States also risk being counter-balanced, and even becoming underbalanced, as they become distracted from the actual threats they face in the international arena. What explains this puzzling behaviour?
To answer this question, this thesis makes two primary contributions. The first is nomothetic: it constructs a neoclassical realist theory of policy paradigms to argue that intervening between systemic stimuli and policy outcomes are paradigmatic frameworks of foreign policy ideas that hijack the policymaking process, accounting for extended periods of policy continuity in conditions where structural realism anticipates change. Paradigms stymy critical thinking and inhibit policy re-adjustment, rendering alternative modes of thinking outside the realms of conscious possibility. Thus, one carries on as it did before, and opportunities for change are rendered moot. It theorises that for invasive paradigms to be overcome, a shift from a permissive to a more restrictive strategic environment is required. The causal primacy at the structural level shows how systemic punishment mechanisms such as entanglement, entrapment, counterbalancing and under-balancing impel policy correction, forcing states back onto a structurally induced course.
The second contribution is empirical: drawing on primary source material, secondary literature and interviews with key foreign policy officials in the United States, the thesis sheds light on America’s inability to correct course on its Cuba and Iran policies since 1959 and 1979 respectively, and demonstrates how rapprochement became a conceivable and implementable option under the Obama administration. In doing so, it traces the process of paradigm formation under Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter, establishes the ways in which the hostility paradigm became institutionalised within the bureaucratic features of American domestic politics preventing policy adjustment during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and shows how, due to increasingly costly shifting structural dynamics in each case, Barack Obama was able to reverse course.
Supervisors
Why do foreign policies endure in conditions that should impel change? By persisting with particular strategies, states risk mounting responses disproportionate relative to the threat and overcommitting resources to situations that seldom warrant it. In adopting such an ‘overbalanced’ posture, states might also become entangled in unnecessary conflict, causing for themselves greater insecurity by worsening the original threat, increasing the risk of spiral dynamics, and fostering further instability. States also risk being counter-balanced, and even becoming underbalanced, as they become distracted from the actual threats they face in the international arena. What explains this puzzling behaviour?
To answer this question, this thesis makes two primary contributions. The first is nomothetic: it constructs a neoclassical realist theory of policy paradigms to argue that intervening between systemic stimuli and policy outcomes are paradigmatic frameworks of foreign policy ideas that hijack the policymaking process, accounting for extended periods of policy continuity in conditions where structural realism anticipates change. Paradigms stymy critical thinking and inhibit policy re-adjustment, rendering alternative modes of thinking outside the realms of conscious possibility. Thus, one carries on as it did before, and opportunities for change are rendered moot. It theorises that for invasive paradigms to be overcome, a shift from a permissive to a more restrictive strategic environment is required. The causal primacy at the structural level shows how systemic punishment mechanisms such as entanglement, entrapment, counterbalancing and under-balancing impel policy correction, forcing states back onto a structurally induced course.
The second contribution is empirical: drawing on primary source material, secondary literature and interviews with key foreign policy officials in the United States, the thesis sheds light on America’s inability to correct course on its Cuba and Iran policies since 1959 and 1979 respectively, and demonstrates how rapprochement became a conceivable and implementable option under the Obama administration. In doing so, it traces the process of paradigm formation under Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter, establishes the ways in which the hostility paradigm became institutionalised within the bureaucratic features of American domestic politics preventing policy adjustment during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, and shows how, due to increasingly costly shifting structural dynamics in each case, Barack Obama was able to reverse course.
University roles and responsibilities
- Research Assistant, Centre for Britain and Europe
- Junior Fellow, Centre for International Intervention
- PGR Seminars & Events Lead 2020/21
- Postgraduate Research Representative for the Department of Politics 2020/21
My qualifications
Affiliations and memberships
News
In the media
ResearchResearch interests
- International security
- UK security & policing
- US foreign policy
Research projects
Over the past few years, there have been substantial changes to the methods and approaches of international policing between the United Kingdom and its European partners. Following the 2016 vote to leave the European Union, and during the many negotiations that followed, senior law enforcement officers from across the United Kingdom stated both routinely and clearly that they wanted to retain as many cross-border policing arrangements shared between Britain and Europe as possible. While some of these arrangements were rolled into the ensuing 2020 EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, many were not, leaving a number of vital issues unresolved. Getting a clear sense of the material impact of these post-Brexit changes was dealt a blow by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which brought with it a number of unanticipated changes and challenges.
As of 2022, it remains difficult to judge the long- term impact of Brexit on a range of cross border law enforcement, until the movement of people, goods and vehicles - among other things - returns to pre-pandemic levels. The landscape at this point is rather uneen. On the one hand, informal policing arrangements have existed for many years and are likely to continue to bring about effective law enforcement solutions; on the other, the ongoing and rapid development of cutting-edge information management technology can now capture an enormous volume of data yielding new opportunities to analyse and share insights and findings with law enforcement, intelligence and border officers to improve overall effectiveness
at scale. Although technology continues to develop at pace, with the advent of artificial intelligence and automation already impacting criminal justice structures, Brexit has seen the United Kingdom move away from some of these vital cross-border information-sharing arrangements, requiring both new arrangements to be put in place, as well as an honest appraisal of the various gaps that remain. In analysing the most germane aspects of Brexit’s impact on law enforcement from the perspective of 2022, this report has over many months collected the views, insights and suggestions of police officers working in both British and European areas of law enforcement, in order to get an authentic sense of Brexit’s overall impact.
To tackle this challenge, a uniquely collaborative and interdisciplinary team drawing together researchers from politics, criminology, and policing studies based at the University of Surrey, Canterbury Christ Church University, and Kingston University was established in Spring 2021 in order to explore the fullest possibe range of post-Brexit changes on British and European law enforcement and police collaboration. With unique access to leading practitioners, stakeholders, decision- makers and serving professionals in these and related areas, our research team collected a host of rich insights regarding the material, institutional and structural experiences of post-Brexit policing, identifying both challenges and opportunities alike. This report thoroughly examines the empirical evidence collected, contextualises it against both the pre-Brexit and post-Brexit environments, presents its analysis and provides policy suggestions which we hope render the report both highly relevant and uniquely practical. The research team wishes to thank all our participants for the generous use of their time and the wisdom of their respective insights, all of which have directly assist the quality of this research.
Indicators of esteem
Santander PhD Mobility Award (£2000 travel grant), University of Surrey
Doctoral College Studentship Award, University of Surrey
Mahindra Naraine Memorial Prize for best overall performance in MA Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University
Research interests
- International security
- UK security & policing
- US foreign policy
Research projects
Over the past few years, there have been substantial changes to the methods and approaches of international policing between the United Kingdom and its European partners. Following the 2016 vote to leave the European Union, and during the many negotiations that followed, senior law enforcement officers from across the United Kingdom stated both routinely and clearly that they wanted to retain as many cross-border policing arrangements shared between Britain and Europe as possible. While some of these arrangements were rolled into the ensuing 2020 EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, many were not, leaving a number of vital issues unresolved. Getting a clear sense of the material impact of these post-Brexit changes was dealt a blow by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, which brought with it a number of unanticipated changes and challenges.
As of 2022, it remains difficult to judge the long- term impact of Brexit on a range of cross border law enforcement, until the movement of people, goods and vehicles - among other things - returns to pre-pandemic levels. The landscape at this point is rather uneen. On the one hand, informal policing arrangements have existed for many years and are likely to continue to bring about effective law enforcement solutions; on the other, the ongoing and rapid development of cutting-edge information management technology can now capture an enormous volume of data yielding new opportunities to analyse and share insights and findings with law enforcement, intelligence and border officers to improve overall effectiveness
at scale. Although technology continues to develop at pace, with the advent of artificial intelligence and automation already impacting criminal justice structures, Brexit has seen the United Kingdom move away from some of these vital cross-border information-sharing arrangements, requiring both new arrangements to be put in place, as well as an honest appraisal of the various gaps that remain. In analysing the most germane aspects of Brexit’s impact on law enforcement from the perspective of 2022, this report has over many months collected the views, insights and suggestions of police officers working in both British and European areas of law enforcement, in order to get an authentic sense of Brexit’s overall impact.
To tackle this challenge, a uniquely collaborative and interdisciplinary team drawing together researchers from politics, criminology, and policing studies based at the University of Surrey, Canterbury Christ Church University, and Kingston University was established in Spring 2021 in order to explore the fullest possibe range of post-Brexit changes on British and European law enforcement and police collaboration. With unique access to leading practitioners, stakeholders, decision- makers and serving professionals in these and related areas, our research team collected a host of rich insights regarding the material, institutional and structural experiences of post-Brexit policing, identifying both challenges and opportunities alike. This report thoroughly examines the empirical evidence collected, contextualises it against both the pre-Brexit and post-Brexit environments, presents its analysis and provides policy suggestions which we hope render the report both highly relevant and uniquely practical. The research team wishes to thank all our participants for the generous use of their time and the wisdom of their respective insights, all of which have directly assist the quality of this research.
Indicators of esteem
Santander PhD Mobility Award (£2000 travel grant), University of Surrey
Doctoral College Studentship Award, University of Surrey
Mahindra Naraine Memorial Prize for best overall performance in MA Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University
Teaching
Graduate Teaching Assistant
- POL1019 Contemporary International History (FHEQ L4)
- POL1017 Debates in British Politics (FHEQ L4)
- POL2036 International Security: The Return of Great Power Politics (FHEQ L5)
Publications
Why do states overestimate threats and, as a result, mount disproportionately strong and therefore costly balancing responses? To answer this question, we build a neoclassical realist theory of overbalancing to argue that unit-level intervening variables help generate a counterforce greater than what a structurally induced ideal response would call for. We identify the factors and conditions that steer states to deviate from realist, optimal policies, pinpoint the consequences of such suboptimal behavior , and provide policymakers with recommendations more suited to an interest-driven foreign policy in line with power considerations. We apply our theory to two distinct case studies: Egypt's costly intervention in Yemen in the 1960s and the American overreaction to the real, but very limited, threat posed by terrorism since 2001.