پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,533 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,519 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,134,771 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,240,637 |
تبیین رابطۀ خودمختاری قومی و جدایی‌طلبی در روابط بین‌الملل (مطالعۀ موردی: گرجستان) | ||
| مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 11، شماره 2، مهر 1397، صفحه 321-338 اصل مقاله (566.87 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2019.243873.449734 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| فهیمه خوانساری‌فرد1؛ محمدعلی بصیری* 2؛ عنایت‌الله یزدانی2 | ||
| 1دکتری روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه اصفهان | ||
| 2دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه اصفهان | ||
| چکیده | ||
| خودمختاری در ادبیات روابط بین‌الملل به‌عنوان شیوه‌ای برای مدیریت درگیری‌های میان اقلیت‌های قومی و دولت مرکزی مطرح بوده است. به باور بسیاری از اندیشمندان روابط بین‌الملل، این شیوه در بیشتر موارد، گزینه‌ای مناسب برای پاسخ‌گویی به مطالبات گروه‌های قومی در زمینۀ بهره‌مندی از آزادی‌های مربوط به هویت متمایز خویش و ایجاد آرامش در روابط این گروه‌ها و دولت مرکزی بوده است. در برابر، برخی دیگر با نفی خوش‌بینی گروه اول معتقدند که دادن خودمختاری سبب تشدید گرایش‌های جدایی‌طلبانۀ گروه‌های قومی و مخدوش‌شدن تمامیت ارضی یک کشور می‌شود. در میان این مجادلات نظری، هدف این نوشتار ارزیابی تأثیر نقش حکومت‌ها در رویارویی با خودمختاری گروه‌های قومی و ارتباط آن با جدایی‌طلبی و نیز بررسی ارتباط میان جدایی‌طلبی و خودمختاری بوده است. در این زمینه پرسش اصلی این است که ارتباط میان خودمختاری و جدایی‌طلبی در روابط بین‌الملل چگونه است؟ و تأثیر دادن یا گرفتن خودمختاری بر جدایی‌طلبی گروه‌های قومی به چه صورت است؟ بنابراین در بخش یافته‌های نوشتار، تلاش شده تا تأثیردادن و یا گرفتن خودمختاری، متغیر مستقل بر جدایی‌طلبی و متغیر وابسته بررسی شود. در ادامه این فرضیه مطرح شده که دادن خودمختاری به گروه‌های قومی به ضرورت به جدایی‌طلبی آن‌ها منجر نمی‌شود؛ هرچند امکان آن را افزایش می‌دهد؛ اما اقدام حکومت مرکزی در گرفتن خودمختاری گروه‌های قومی، احتمال جدایی‌طلبی خشونت‌بار آن‌ها را به میزان بسیار زیادی افزایش می‌دهد. در این نوشتار با بهره‌گیری از روش توصیفی - تحلیلی تلاش شده است تا این فرضیه در مورد دو جمهوری خودمختار آبخازیا و منطقۀ خودمختار اوستیای جنوبی در گرجستان بررسی شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| آبخازیا؛ اوستیای جنوبی؛ جدایی‌طلبی؛ خودمختاری؛ گروه‌های قومی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Explaining the Relationship between Ethnic Autonomy and Separatism in International Relations (Case Study: Georgia) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Fahimeh Khansari Fard1؛ Mohammad Ali Basiri2؛ Enayatollah Yazdani2 | ||
| 1PhD Student of International Relations, University of Isfahan | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Isfahan | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Generally in the literature of political science and international relations, autonomy has been viewed as an effective way to manage conflicts and tensions between ethnic minorities and the central government, and to regulate relations between them. Ethnic and territorial autonomy is not a new way of managing the relations of the center and ethnic minorities; but in recent years, with the importance of issues such as regional and international peace and stability, most of the countries that are faced with ethnic diversity within their borders are increasingly focusing on this way for managing the demands of their ethnic groups. This is common practice, especially in developed countries, where democracy and democratic principles and structures are the basis of behavior and political action. Hence, the autonomous regions around the world are many. Quebec, Basque, Catalonia, Tibet, and so on, are among the autonomous regions in the world. But the important issue about autonomy is the emergence of ethno-territorial separatism, which many thinkers in the international relations consider as one of the consequences of autonomy. Therefore, there can be a broad scholarly gap in the study of the relation between autonomy and separatism. Many researchers have argued that ethnic autonomy in most cases has been an appropriate option for answering the demands of ethnic groups and a desirable way for ethnic groups to benefit from freedom and rights of their distinctive identities and to create a calm relationship between these groups and the central government. In contrast, others believe that the autonomy leads to the radicalization of the demand of ethnic groups from the center and the intensification of the separatist tendencies of these groups and the incomplete territorial integrity of a country. Another group also believes that in examining the relationship between autonomy and the separatism, the central issue is the central government's action in abolishing the autonomy of the autonomous groups. This theory is known as the “lost autonomy theory”, and believes that the central government, by abolishing the autonomy of autonomous ethnic groups, intensifies the separation process of these groups. Therefore, among these theoretical debates and according to the third perspective, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of the role of governments in the face of the autonomy and its relation to separatism, as well as the study of the relationship between separatism and autonomy. On the other hand, one of the areas that is considered as a valuable field in studying the phenomenon of autonomy and separatism is the independent states of the Soviet Union. In general, autonomous regions have been very much in the Soviet Union. In fact, because the territory of the Soviet Union has historically been the home of many ethnic groups, autonomy was used by the Soviet centralized system to regulate the demands of these groups and manage their relations with the dominant ethnic groups. In the centralized and hierarchical system of the Soviet Union, entities such as the autonomous republics, autonomous regions, and autonomous oblasts were dominated by the union republics. In the final years of the Soviet Union, and with the intensification of the process of separatist tendencies among the ethnic groups, the autonomous regions, with regard to the status of autonomy, moved in the way of territorial separation. The actions of the governments of union republics with the autonomous groups also intensified the separatist tendencies of these groups. Indeed, autonomy has become a factor in the emergence and intensification of the separatist process in post-Soviet space. Meanwhile, one of the countries faced with the issue of autonomy in the last years of the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet era is the Republic of Georgia. During the Soviet Union, this country had two autonomous republics, Ajaria and Abkhazia, and an autonomous oblast, South Ossetia. These entities, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, moved toward territorial separation. Therefore, in this article, the relation between the autonomy and separatism and the status of the autonomous regions in the Republic of Georgia as well as the Post-Soviet separatism in this country have been analyzed. Therefore, the main question of this paper is this: What is the relation between autonomy and separatism in international relations? And what is the effect of autonomy on the ethnic group separatism? In the findings section of this research, the article endeavors to examine the effect of abolishing the autonomy as an independent variable on separatism as an associated variable. In the following, hypothesis of this article is that giving autonomy to ethnic groups does not lead to radical tendencies and separatism; however, in general, increases the possibility of separatism; but the important issue is that the central government's action in abolishing the autonomy of ethnic groups increases the likelihood of violent separatism. In this paper, using the descriptive-analytical method, the authors have tried to study this hypothesis in association with the two autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the Republic of Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia as two autonomous entities expressed their nationalist tendencies in the 1980s, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, these tendencies became more violent. Tbilisi's actions in relation to these tendencies and in particular the implementation of intense policies in relation to these groups, have led to an intensification of separatist tendencies in these areas and ultimately to their war with the central government in the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Abkhazia, Autonomy, Ethnic Groups, Separatism, South Ossetia | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
A) English
1. Antonyan, Yulia (2016), Elites and “Elites”: Transformations of Social Structures in Post-Soviet Armenia and Georgia, Academic Swiss Caucasus Net (ASCN). 2. Brancati, Dawn (2009), Peace by Design, Managing Intrastate Conflict through Decentralization, Oxford University Press. 3. Caspersen, Nina (2012), Unrecognized States: the Struggle for Sovereignty in the Modern International System, Cambridge: Polity Press. 4. Catala, Amandine (2013), “Remedial Theories of Secession and Territorial Justification”, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 74–94. 5. Closson, Stacy (2010), “Networks of Profit in Georgia’s Autonomous Regions: Challenges to Statebuilding”, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 179-204. 6. Cornell, Svante E. (2002), “Autonomy as a Source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective”, World Politics, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 245–276. 7. German, Tracey (2016), “Russia and South Ossetia: Conferring Statehood or Creeping Annexation?”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 155–167. 8. Geukjian, Ohannes (2012), Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in the South Caucasus Nagorno-Karabakh and the Legacy of Soviet Nationalities Policy, Ashgate Publishing Limited. 9. Hale, Henry E. (2008), The Foundations of Ethnic Politics, Separatism 10. Hille, Charlotte (2010), State Building and Conflict Resolution in the Caucasus, BRILL. 11. Horowitz, Donald (1985), Ethnic Groups in Conflict, University of California Press. 12. Kolsto, Pal and Helge Blakkisrud (2012), “De-Facto States and Democracy: the Case of Nagorno-Karabakh”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, No. 45, pp. 141-151. 13. Kolsto, Pal and Helge Blakkisrud (2013), “Yielding to the Sons of the Soil: Abkhazian Democracy and the Marginalization of the Armenian Vote”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 2075-2095. 14. Kurian, George Thomas (2011), The Encyclopedia of Political Science, CQ Press, a Division of SAGE. 15. Macfarlane, Neil and Natalie Sabanadze (2013), “Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Where are we?”, International Journal, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 609–627. 16. Melikishvili, Liana and Natia Jalabadze (2016), “The Issue of Ethnic Identity and Aspects of Cross-Cultural Orientation of the Greeks in Georgia (the Example of Ts’alk’a Greeks)”, STUF, Language Typology and Universals, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 193-211. 17. Metreveli, Ekaterine (2014), “The Georgian State and Minority Relations”, Caucasus Analytical Digest, No. 64, pp. 6-13. 18. National Statistics Office of Georgia (2016), Available at: http:// www.geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/english/population/Census_release_ENG_2016, (Accessed on: 16/1/2018). 19. O’Flynn, Ian and David Russell (2005), Power Sharing New Challenges for Divided Societies, London: Pluto Press. 20. Saparov, Arsene (2010), “From Conflict to Autonomy: the Making of the South Ossetian Autonomous Region 1918–1922”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 99–123. 21. Siroky, David (2016), “The Sources of Secessionist War: the Interaction of Local Control and Foreign Forces in Post-Soviet Georgia”, Caucasus Survey, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 63–91. 22. Siroky, David S. and John Cuffe (2015), “Lost Autonomy, Nationalism and Separatism”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 3-34. 23. Sterio, Milena (2013), The Right to Self Determination under International Law, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. 24. Sussex, Matthew (2012), Conflict in the Former USSR, New York, Cambridge University Press. 25. Weller, Marc and Katherine Nobbs (2010), Asymmetric Autonomy and the Settlement of Ethnic Conflicts, University of Pennsylvania Press. 26. Wimmer, Andreas (2013), Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, and Ethnic Exclusion in the Modern World, New York, Cambridge University Press. 27. Wolff, Stefan (2013), “Conflict Management in Divided Societies: the Many Uses of Territorial Self-Governance”, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, Vol. 20, No. 1,pp. 27-50. 28. Yemelianova, Galina M. (2015), “Western Academic Discourse on the Post-Soviet De-Facto State Phenomenon”, Caucasus Survey, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 219–238.
B) Persian
1. Amirahmadian, Bahram and Hasan Asgari (2010), “South Ossetia Crisis: Orgins, Aspects, Implications and Prospects”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 21-42. 2. Molaee, Yousef (2014), “Self-Determination: from a Political Claim to a Legal Demand”, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 65, pp. 7-33. 3. Vaezi, Tayebe (2010), “An Evolution in the Concept of International Recognition of States: an Emphasis on the Recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia”, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 46, pp. 83-113. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 984 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 593 |
||