1. State Structure & Decision Mechanism
Focus only on institutional facts, not leader psychology. For each state:
- Formal system: regime type, constitutional setup, centralization vs federalism.
- Decision rules: who must approve foreign policy (executive, parliament, military, party, etc.).
- Veto players: institutions that can block or reshape external policy.
Describe using verifiable features (constitutional powers, laws, formal roles), not value judgments.
2. National Interests & Policy Objectives
Separate stated from inferred interests, and label them as such.
- Stated interests: strategy documents, official speeches, white papers, treaties.
- Operational priorities: repeated patterns in behavior (alliances, spending, deployments).
- Issue-specific objectives: what each state seeks in this particular bilateral domain (security, trade, tech, etc.).
Keep it objective by anchoring every “interest” in either explicit documents or observable behavior, not assumed motives.
3. Material Capabilities & Relative Position
Stick to measurable variables.
- Economic indicators: GDP, trade volume, key sectors, dependencies.
- Military indicators: force size, spending, key systems, nuclear status.
- Demographic and technological indicators: population, education, R&D, digital infrastructure.
Always compare relative positions (“A has X% of B’s GDP”) to avoid normative language like “strong” or “weak” without context.
4. Structural Environment & Constraints
Describe the context both states sit in, without moral framing.
- Geography: borders, distances, chokepoints, access to sea/land routes.
- Third-party structures: alliances, rivalries, IO memberships, external patrons.
- International regimes: binding agreements or norms that constrain behavior (WTO, NPT, etc.).
Only record constraints and opportunities created by structure, not how “good” or “bad” they are.
5. Historical Relationship & Strategic Narratives
Treat history as data, not moral scorekeeping.
- Factual chronology: wars, crises, treaties, sanctions, major cooperation episodes.
- Stable narratives: how each side officially tells the story of the relationship (school curricula, official statements, commemorations).
- Path dependence: specific historical events that still shape options today (disputed borders, unresolved grievances).
You avoid bias by:
- Recording both sides’ narratives side-by-side.
- Marking them explicitly as “State A’s narrative / State B’s narrative,” not as truth claims.
6. Domestic Politics & Societal Link
Keep this at the structural level, not “public mood” or anecdotes.
- Upward channels: elections, interest groups, media freedom, institutionalized consultation with business/lobbies, etc.
- Policy salience: how prominently the bilateral relationship features in manifestos, parliamentary debates, official campaigns.
- Downward effects: observable impacts on citizens (trade-dependent jobs, visa regimes, remittances, security incidents).
Where possible, use data (polls, election results, trade dependence percentages) rather than impressions.
7. Interaction Pattern & Institutionalization
This is where you synthesize, but still descriptively.
- Mode of interaction by domain: cooperation, competition, or conflict in security, economy, technology, diplomacy, society.
- Mechanisms: treaties, summits, hotlines, working groups, joint exercises, dispute mechanisms.
- Stability indicators: crisis frequency, escalation patterns, duration of agreements, compliance records.
You stay objective by coding behavior (e.g., “three border crises in ten years,” “annual summit held as scheduled 8/10 years”) rather than evaluating intentions (“trustworthy” / “aggressive”).
If you consistently:
- Anchor every claim to documents, institutions, and observable behavior,
- Explicitly label narratives as narratives, and
- Avoid psychological or moral language about leaders or peoples,
then this 7-point framework will keep your bilateral analysis as objective and de-personalized as possible while still being analytically rich.