It explains why the government takes such an action, how the decision is going to work out and what could be the possible alternatives and their consequences.

The term decision making is often described as the act or process of making choices. In this line, decision making refers to the process of identifying problems, exploring possible alternatives, and selecting the appropriate strategy to resolve those issues.

• identifying the problem,

• searching for alternatives,

• choosing an alternative, and

• executing the alternative.

one-shot (single) decisions, interactive decisions, sequential decisions, sequential-interactive decisions, and group decisions.

These types of decisions are rare in foreign policy decision making because relations related to international relations are sequential in general. However a single decision on a single case can be analyzed as a one-shot decision. For example, although in nature it is sequential, a decision not to join an international treaty can be analyzed as such.

Interactive decisions are those involving at least two players who make decisions that affect and area effected by the other player’s decision. For example, if one state has to decide on an other, say of a peace agreement, by another state, this is an interactive decision because it affects both its own future and the situation of the other state.

Sequential decisions involve a series of interrelated decisions, such as whether to intervene in Syria;increase or decrease troop levels; whether to withdraw or to stay; and, finally, when the operation should end.

Crisis decisions are made in situations which include a high degree of threat, a high level of time pressure, and a very small group of decision actors consisting mainly of only high level decision makers. In other words, crisis situations entail a sufficiently serious problem to command the intense, sustained attention of the top level leadership within a finite time frame.

It is assumed that decision makers are rational actors and make the best choice among its alternatives. The actor is not only predicated as acting rationally but also as having complete information.

According to Jervis individual decision makers are influenced by a set of dynamics like their belief systems, individual characteristics, and past experiences.

The trademark of the RAM is “the attempt to explain international events by recounting the aims and calculations of nations or governments”

1. define the situation basing on objective assessment,

2. specify the goal to be achieved and if there is con ict 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.

In this scenario, two suspects are arrested on suspicion of carrying out a serious crime. The suspects are interrogated separately. They each have one choice. They can accept a plea bargain deal offered by the police. is deal would mean testifying against the other suspect. Or they can refuse the deal and stay loyal to their partner. Staying loyal to the partnermight be costly because there is no guarantee the partner will reciprocate.

Neither suspect knows what the other is doing. They cannot communicate before making their decision. Because the players do not know what the other is doing, they will choose the best outcome regardless of what the other player does. The result is that each will choose to take the plea bargain. is is known as minimax behaviour. Each player is acting to avoid the worst outcome that could result from the other player’s actions.

Because each takes the deal, the police do not need to other a generous deal to either. If the players could have communicated, they could have agreed not to take the deal, and both would have done better because there would have been no testimony to link either to any serious crime.

The Chicken Game is commonly used to depict strategic and rational behavior. the popular narrative for this game is as follows. Two drivers are facing each other in cars. They will drive toward each other head- on, and whoever swerves is the loser. If they both swerve, they each lose but avoid the worst outcome of a head-on crash. If only one driver swerves, he loses relatively more than if both had swerved. The driver who does not swerve in that situation would be the winner. So the payo structure is ranked as: winner (other driver swerves), survivor (both swerve), sucker (other driver wins), and crash (neither swerve).

According to this model, the national government is not a unitary actor like assumed in the RAM, it is also not comprised of individual decision makers. Instead, it is, as Allison describes, “a constellation of loosely allied organizations on top of which leaders sit” (Allison, 1971: 79). Each organizational unit of the government has special function responsibilities. For example while diplomacy is the task of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence deals with defence issues.

Step by step instructions compiled by an organziation to guide the bureaucrats carry out routine operations.

While there is consensus on national interests in general, individual interests can only have an influence on individuals whose individual characteristics are open to such influences. Organizational interests, on the other hand, often may not coincide with the ‘national interest’, and in fact, because each bureaucracy manipulates foreign policy in the direction that corresponds to its particular interests, bureaucratic considerations may override the national interest.

• Identification of the Problem

• Interpretation, Determination and Evaluation of Alternatives

  Selection of the Best Option

  Implementation of the Decision

Actor based influences are direct reactions coming from other states towards the chosen foreign policy course. They are important in that if a state miscalculates the expected reaction of a third country, this can cause in a failure of the policy. For example, if a state decides to intervene in another countries crisis militarily, it should take into account the reactions of neighboring countries along with other systemic dynamics. If other neighboring countries unexpectedly decide to intervene to take side with the country being intervened, this will result in a misstep for it.

The decision maker or leader is the most important part of the decision making process, in fact, the leader is the one who makes the last choice and thus the decision. However, the personality of the leader does not influence the decision making process directly. Such direct influences might be seen in crisis situations where great social and political changes occur or in political systems where decision making is not a part of a developed bureaucratic mechanism, namely when it is totally in the hands of the leader.