Decision makers do not find the problems or opportunities out there; problems/opportunities should be recognized by them. Before a problem is identified by the decision maker, three stages appear; first a stimulus from the environment should be received, then this stimulus should be perceived, and finally this perceived stimulus should be interpreted as a foreign policy problem/opportunity. Images serve as filters for decision makers because they are representations of the world for the decision
maker.

Liberal pluralist perspective values the role of societal and intra-state level factors in foreign policy analysis. States are not unitary actors and their internal characteristics would decisively shape their foreign policy preferences and actions (Jackson and Sorenson, 2003, 105-137)

Globalization defines the processes whereby state-centric agencies, terms of reference and the state’s ability to control the international processes that are limited in favor of interaction and integration between different actors. As a result of this, state sovereignty is significantly challenged.

Realism is considered to be the foundational approach to IR in the sense that many other approaches and theories are formulated either in response or in support to it.

Originating with the Peace of Westphalia, ending the 30 Years’ Wars, in 1648, sovereignty, or more properly state-sovereignty, is an externally, i.e. by other actors, recognized right of independent, supreme or final decision-making and decision-enforcing authority possessed by the state, generally over given territory. It arose as a defense of the monarchs right of complete authority over their realms against the claims of lesser local princes, and also in opposition to, universal or supreme authorities such as the Papacy and Holy Roman Empire.

When faced with a decision making situation, rational actors within the framework of RAM follow a process with certain stages. They;
1. define the situation basing on objective assessment,
2. specify the goal to be achieved and if there is conflict among them prioritize the goal
3. consider all possible alternative means of achieving the goal,
4. select the final alternative that is calculated to maximize achievement of the goal,
5. take the necessary actions to implement the decision.

Case-study approach stands on the opposite of comparative foreign policy approach. Whereas comparative foreign policy approach attempt to formulate a generalisable theory of foreign policy, case-study approach claims that each state has a unique foreign policy. The central belief in this approach is that any explanation of foreign policy behaviours through generalisations would cause the loss of unique factors that make up a foreign policy action and creating patterns, models and theories, and trying to fit the foreign policy behaviour of states into these, ignore the essence of foreign policy that is being explained (Tayfur, 1994, 126).

The correct answer is B.

Foreign policy objectives could simply be defined as the ends that foreign policy is designed to achieve. These might involve mostly abstract goals of survival, security, protection and/ or advancement of a particular ideology, well-being of the society, pursuit of power, etc.

Bounded rationality was first suggested by an economist, Herbert Simon--who suggested that decision makers satisfice rather than maximize. Simon suggested that if rationality is a need in the process of decision making, it could be found within the context of partial information and other limitations placed on decisions. In other words, decision makers act rationally but within the limited context of alternatives.

The Cold War refers to the non-violent conflict between the Western block led by the United States of America and the Eastern block led by Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and it lasted between the years 1947 and 1989. The term Cold War itself was first coined by George Orwell in 1945 in order to explain the political and as well as ideological dispute between these two superpowers.

A proper understanding and determination of foreign policy objectives is carried
out by conducting a three level situational analysis; of the international system, of the capabilities readily available for the state, and the capabilities and intentions of its counterparts.

The first category will be called as constructive power. This is the kind of power a country has when it does have determinative power on the outcome of an issue. In this case, the actor could decisively affect and shape the outcomes according to its desired objectives and goals. The second category is comparative power and could be defined as the kind of power states has when it still does possess enough relative power to influence the outcomes according to its priorities and objectives, albeit in a framework defined by comparative advantages. Hence, it can manage to achieve a comparable, convenient outcome. However, in such cases it is beyond the state’s power to definitively shape these outcomes. Despite the fact that it is able to achieve an outcome that does not fit with its ideal targets, it can still exercise certain influence to secure outcomes relatively closer to its objectives and goals than those of its rival(s). Finally, there are those issues where the state can exercise veto power. In this case, it can forbid decisions and actions of its counterpart(s). It can deny them the amount of influence they would like to have on its decisions. As a consequence, it can limit their power on the outcome of the issue in question. The correct answer is D.

Organizational behavior approach argues that states are made up of different organizations which compete with each other in order to shape the foreign policy preferences and behaviors of their states.

Another way of contextualizing this debate is to focus on alternative images in international relations. Kenneth Walzt, one of the founding fathers of modern International Relations disciple, argues that there exist three images in international relations, which are first, second and third images (Waltz, 1954). These images correspond to the three levels. First image is about the leaders and statesmen who are in charge of their countries.

Finally, there are those issues where the state can exercise veto power. In this case, it can forbid decisions and actions of its counterpart(s). It can deny them the amount of influence they would like to have on its decisions.

Cognitive dissonance is one of the individual factors while the rest are examples of internal factors of foreign policy. The correct option is B.

Interdependence implies that the increasing connectivity between the actors and issues led to a world where no actor is immune from the impact of what is happening to another. Interdependence is positively correlated with industrialization, modernization, and most importantly globalization. It is used to describe a new phase in international relations where states were becoming increasingly interdependent on a vast variety of issues.

Prospect theory is an approach that focuses on decision making under risk. Prospect theory approach foresees two phases in making decisions. The editing phase involves a preliminary analysis of the choice problem and includes identification of the options available to the actor, the possible outcomes or consequences of each, and the values and probabilities associated with each of these outcomes. In the evaluation phase, the edited prospects are evaluated and the preferred prospect is selected, which means that the decision is made (Levy, 1992, 179-180). According to this theory, the individual attitude towards gain and loss are not the same and people fear loss more than they expect gain. Prospect theory suggests that avoiding loss is more important than securing gain and that is why individuals cherish what they possess and are wary of losing what they already have (Mintz and DeRouen, 2010, 76).

Graham T. Allison has divided the decision making style into three different models based on the structure and function of the decision making unit. These are The Rational Actor Model (RAM), Organizational Process Model (OPM), and Bureaucratic Politics Model (BPM).

One of the psychological factors that might curtail leaders' ability to act rationally is cognitive dissonance. Leaders might hold particular world views and belief systems and these might shape their foreign policy preferences and behaviors decisively. They might
be predisposed to interpret the external stimuli in such a way that corresponds and validates their previously held beliefs. Whenever they are exposed to some signals that contradict their previously held world views and belief systems they might tend to ignore them, most of the time at the peril of the national interests of their countries defined rationally. Thus, the correct answer is A.