s of the post-World War II decolonization movement, Robert Jackson argues that the decolonization drive was a fundamentally normative struggle. Decolonization was neither the result of a shift in power dynamics nor of a change in fundamental imperialist economic interests; it was driven by a change in the common perception of legitimacy. Decolonization was more a revolution of ideas regarding international statecraft and whether or not it could be considered legitimate rather than of power. Jackson observes that proponents of decolonization were supported in their demands for independence by prevailing norms and ideals. Nationalists knew that within this atmosphere of democratization, their opponents would be hard put to refute their arguments. Although Jackson does not completely deny the role that power and interests played in decolonization, he nevertheless regards the evolution of ideals as the driving force behind the movement. Jackson s conceptual explanation of decolonization uses change in worldview as its independent variable. More specifically, he focuses on how an actor s values ??and sense of legitimacy are able to influence its behavior.a broad sense, the notion of ideas encompasses preferences, desires, knowledge, and information. State behaviour being the product of conscious decision-making, all behavior may be said to have passed through the medium of ideas. Yet, if any explanation that touches upon ideas is to be regarded as ideational, then virtually all explanations could be so categorized. Similarly, material explanations in which all relevant factors are viewed as material would also regard the human brain as material, thereby cancelling out any possible ideational explanation. Ideas constitute an extremely broad concept, and if no limitations are imposed on the scope of ideational explanations, they can be applied in almost every case, which reduces their significance. This is not to say that all explanations incorporating relevant ideational elements are ideational; or that all analyses that touch upon material elements are material. What relevant is the underlying mechanism of cause and effect that leads actors to make behavioural choices. A consideration that clearly distinguishes material interests, informational factors and a sense of values, therefore, is of benefit.the basis of the above considerations, this essay holds that when changes in ideas are raised as the possible cause of changes in behaviour, exactly the change that the actor s sense of identity and of appropriate behaviour has undergone must be defined; an ideational explanation, therefore, does not account for the influence changes in the actor s information have on changed behaviour. Moreover, neither can the use of ideas as a device for pursuing material interests be viewed as an ideational explanation.manner in which human rights issues are treated in American foreign policy illustrates this point. While protecting human rights is itself in the interests of the United States, it is also an issue that is pursued in order to achieve other objectives. If the United States decision to respect human rights were to lead to changes in American foreign policy, this change in behaviour would certainly merit an ideational explanation. The aim of the above distinction is to avoid an ideational explanation for almost all of state behaviour, in particular that which exhibits initiative. As John Hall once said, Ideas are not held to be determinant in some free-floating way, and if research is based on the acknowledgment that social actors have both ideal and material interests, it has much to recommend it .distinction is helpful as regards a deeper cognizance of the opposing affects of the respective influences of ideational and material factors on behaviour, and of the absence of information from the equation.is worth pointing out that this essay in no way refutes that ideas play as significant a role in any determination of behaviour as material factors. As conscious behaviour goes through mental processes, the actor s framework of cognition is bound to influence its behaviour. This makes an abstract weighing-up of the contrasting influences of the ideational and the material extremely difficult. Explanations based on information and cognition of material factors, no matter how various, take a fundamentally different approach from those based on the actor s ideas. In order to give a succinct explanation of changes in behaviour it is important to separate these two analytical approaches. The focus of the foregoing three explanations is on the motivation for changes in Qing Dynasty diplomatic behaviour. It asks, did material factors, in particular cognition of material information, or a change in the sense of values ??and concepts of appropriate behaviour play the more dominant role in changed behaviour. Bearing in mind the distinctions made in this essay, from a cause and effect perspect...
