Why does the academic study of international relations have limited impact on the policy community? When research results are inconsistent, inconclusive, and contradictory, a lack of scholarly consensus discourages policy makers, the business community, and other citizens from trusting findings and conclusions from IR research. In New Directions for International Relations, Alex Mintz and Bruce Russett identify differences in methods of analysis as one cause of these problematic results. They discuss the problem and set the stage for nine chapters by diverse scholars to demonstrate innovative new developments in IR theory and creative new methods that can lay the basis for greater consensus. Looking at areas of concern such as the relationship between lawmaking and the use of military force, the challenge of suppressing extremists without losing moderates, and the public health effects of civil conflict, contributors show how international relations research can generate reliable results that can be, and in fact are, used in the real world.

When new leaders come to office, there is often speculation about whether they will take their countries' foreign policies in different directions or stick to their predecessors' policies. We argue that when new leaders come to power who represent different societal interests and preferences than their predecessors, leaders may pursue new foreign policies. At the same time, in democracies, leadership selection processes and policymaking rules blunt leaders' incentives and opportunities for change. Democracies thus tend to pursue more consistent foreign policies than nondemocracies even when new leaders with different supporting coalitions assume office. Statistical analyses of three distinct foreign policy areas - military alliances, UNGA voting, and economic sanctions - provide support for our argument. In a fourth area - trade - we find that both democracies and nondemocracies are more likely to experience foreign policy change when a new leader with a different supporting coalition comes to power. We thus conclude that foreign policy responds to domestic political interests, and that, even as the interests supporting leaders change, democracies' foreign policies are no less stable than those of nondemocracies and often exhibit greater consistency.