Revisiting Putnam’s two-level game theory in the digital age: domestic digital diplomacy and the Iran nuclear deal

References

• Acker, Amelia and Adam Kriesberg (2017) ‘Tweets may be archived: Civic engagement, digital preservation and obama white house social media data’, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54:1, 1–9
   Google Scholar
• Bertot, John Carlo, Paul T Jaeger and Derek Hansen (2012) ‘The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations’, Government Information Quarterly, 29:1, 30–40
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertot, John Carlo, Paul T Jaeger and Justin M Grimes (2012) ‘Promoting transparency and accountability through ICTs, social media, and collaborative e-government’, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6:1, 78–91
   Google Scholar
• Bjola, C and J Pamment (2016) ‘Digital containment: revisiting containment strategy in the digital age’, Global Affairs, 2:2, 131–142
   Google Scholar
• Bjola, C (2016) ‘Digital diplomacy–the state of the art’, Global Affairs, 2:3, 297–299
   Google Scholar
• Bjola, Corneliu and Lu Jiang (2015) ‘Social media and public diplomacy: a comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China’ in Corneliu Bjola and Marcus Holmes (eds) Digital diplomacy theory and practice (New York, NY: Routledge), 71–88
   Google Scholar
• Boyer, MA (2000) ‘Issue definition and two-level negotiations: an application to the American foreign policy process’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 11:2, 185–212
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V and V Clarke (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77–101
   Google Scholar
• Clark, WR, E Duchesne and S Meunier (2000) ‘Domestic and international asymmetries in the United States-European union trade negotiations’, International Negotiation, 5:1, 69–95
   Google Scholar
• Conley, MT, A Abbasov, N Gibson and F Teo, (2012) ‘Domestic public diplomacy discussion paper: international experience’, Discussion Paper, Australian Institute of International Affairs, <<https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/legacy/pdfs/domestic.pdf>>, accessed 21 May 2016
   Google Scholar
• Copeland, Daryl (2013). ‘Taking Diplomacy Public’, in Rhonda S Zaharna, Amelia Arsenault and Ali Fisher (eds) Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: the connective mindshift (Oxon: Routledge), 56–59
   Google Scholar
• Finke, D and T König (2009) ‘Why risk popular ratification failure? A comparative analysis of the choice of the ratification instrument in the 25 member states of the EU’, Constitutional Political Economy, 20:3–4, 341–365
   Google Scholar
• Hayden, C (2012) ‘Social media at State: power, practice, and conceptual limits for US public diplomacy’, Global Media Journal, 12: 1–21
   Google Scholar
• Haynal, George (2011) ‘Corporate diplomacy in the information age: catching up to the dispersal of power’, in Janice Gross Stein (ed) Diplomacy in the digital age: essays in honour of ambassador allan gotlieb (Toronto: Signal), 209–224
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D and I Maher (2014) ‘British brinkmanship and gaelic games: eu treaty ratification in the UK and Ireland from a two level game perspective’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16:4, 645–661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hug, S and T Schulz (2007) ‘Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process’, The Review of International Organizations, 2:2, 177–218
   Google Scholar
• Iida, K (1993) ‘When and how do domestic constraints matter? two-level games with uncertainty’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37:3, 403–426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kampf, R, I Manor and E Segev (2015) ‘Digital diplomacy 2.0? a cross-national comparison of public engagement on facebook and twitter’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10:4, 331-362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kragh, M and S Åsberg (2017) ‘Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the swedish case’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 40:6, 773–816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Gwanhoo and Young Hoon Kwak (2012) ‘An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement’, Government Information Quarterly, 29:4, 492–503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leventoglu, B and A Tarar (2005) ‘Prenegotiation public commitment in domestic and international bargaining’, American Political Science Review, 99:03, 419–433
   Google Scholar
• Lisowski, M (2002) ‘Playing the two-level game: Us president bush’s decision to repudiate the kyoto protocol’, Environmental Politics, 11:4, 101–119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manor, I (2017) ‘America’s selfie–three years later’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4:13, 1-17
   Google Scholar
• Manor, I (2016) ‘Are we there yet: have MFAs realised the potential of digital diplomacy?’, Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1:2, 1–110
   Google Scholar
• Mergel, Ines (2013) ‘Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government’, Government Information Quarterly, 30:2, 123–130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzgar, ET (2012) ‘Is it the medium or the message? social media, american public relations & Iran’, Global Media Journal, 12:21, 1–16
   Google Scholar
• Milner, HV and BP Rosendorff (1996) ‘Trade negotiations, information and domestic politics: the role of domestic groups’, Economics & Politics, 8:2, 145–189
   Google Scholar
• Mo, J (1995) ‘Domestic institutions and international bargaining: the role of agent veto in two-level games’, American Political Science Review, 89:04, 914–924
   Google Scholar
• Pamment, J (2013) New public diplomacy in the 21st century: evaluating policy and practice (Oxon: Routledge), 3-4
   Google Scholar
• Picazo-Vela, Sergio, Isis Gutiérrez-Martínez and Luis Felipe Luna-Reyes (2012) ‘Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector’, Government Information Quarterly, 29:4, 504–511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, R (1988) ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization, 42:03, 427–460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodan, Maya (2015) ‘White house launches twitter account to sell Iran deal’, Time 21 July 2015 <<http://time.com/3966006/white-house-twitter-iran-deal/>>, accessed 21 August 2015
   Google Scholar
• Shamir, J and K Shikaki (2005) ‘Public opinion in the israeli-palestinian two-level game’, Journal of Peace Research, 42:3, 311–328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, Paul (2016) ‘Domestic public diplomacy, domestic diplomacy, and domestic foreign policy, in Gunther Hellmann, Andreas Fahrmeir, and Miloš Vec (eds) The transformation of foreign policy: drawing and managing boundaries from antiquity to the present (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 266
   Google Scholar
• Snead, John T (2013) ‘Social media use in the US executive branch’, Government Information Quarterly, 30:1, 56–63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommerfeldt, EJ, ML Kent and M Taylor (2012) ‘Activist practitioner perspectives of website public relations: why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the dialogic promise?’, Public Relations Review, 38:2, 303–312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speaker of the House (2015) ‘The iran deal is far worse than anything i imagined’, Speaker of the House Website, <<http://www.speaker.gov/speech/speaker-boehner-iran-deal-far-worse-anything-i-imagined>>, accessed 15 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, M and ML Kent (2014) ‘Dialogic engagement: clarifying foundational concepts’, Journal of Public Relations Research, 26:5, 384–398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toosi, Nahal (2015) ‘White house to engage Iran critics through @TheIranDeal’, Politico, 21 July 2015 <<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/white-house-to-engage-iran-critics-through-theirandeal-120408>>, accessed 15 September 2015
   Google Scholar
• Trumbore, PF (1998) ‘Public opinion as a domestic constraint in international negotiations: two-level games in the anglo-irish peace processes’, International Studies Quarterly, 42:3, 545–565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twiplomacy (2016) ‘Twiplomacy 2016 study’, Twiplomacy website <<http://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2016/>>, accessed 21 May 2016
   Google Scholar
• Walker, C and J Ludwig (2017) The meaning of sharp power [Online]. Foreign Affairs. <<https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-11-16/meaning-sharp-power?cid=int-fls&pgtype=hpg>>, accessed 15 April 2018
   Google Scholar
• Wichowski, Alexis (2015) ‘Secrecy is for losers: why diplomats should embrace openness to protect national security’ in Corneliu Bjola and Marcus Holmes (eds) Digital diplomacy theory and practice (New York, NY: Routledge), 52–70
   Google Scholar
• Zavattaro, Staci M and Arthur J Sementelli (2014) ‘A critical examination of social media adoption in government: introducing omnipresence’, Government Information Quarterly, 31:2, 257–264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar