پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,502 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,117,319 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,222,813 |
تأثیر سیاست شناسایی بر گفتمان سیاست خارجی روسیه با تمرکز بر خاورمیانه | ||
| مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 12، شماره 2، مهر 1398، صفحه 273-289 اصل مقاله (656.03 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2019.269073.449807 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| آرمینا آرم1؛ کیهان برزگر* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران | ||
| 2دانشیار روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مبارزه برای شناسایی یکی از دلیل‌های بروز کشمکش و منازعه در عرصۀ سیاست جهانی و عامل تأثیرگذار بر رفتار بازیگران بین‌المللی، مورد توجه پژوهشگران رشتۀ روابط بین‌الملل قرار گرفته است. هویت بازیگران از راه شناسایی‌شدن یا شناسایی‌نشدن «دیگران» شکل می‌گیرد و در تأثیر دیگران، همواره بازتعریف می‌شود. از این دیدگاه، تشدید تنش میان روسیه و ایالات متحد بیشتر به شناسایی‌نشدن غرب از جایگاه روسیه به‌عنوان «قدرت بزرگ» و شریکی برابر در نظام بین‌الملل مربوط می‌شود. بحث اصلی نویسندگان نوشتار این است که خواست روسیه برای شناسایی جایگاه قدرت بزرگ و سازگارنبودن این خودانگاره با تصویر غرب از روسیه در کنار آرمان این کشور برای دستیابی به این جایگاه، روایت اصلی گفتمان سیاست خارجی روسیه را شکل داده است. در حال حاضر، روسیه با به‌کارگیری سیاست خارجی مبارزه‌جویانه به‌ویژه در اوکراین و سوریه به‌دنبال تثبیت و شناسایی جایگاه خود در نظام بین‌الملل و مبارزه با یک‌جانبه‌گرایی ایالات متحد در بحران‌های بین‌المللی است. یافته‌های این نوشتار نشان می‌دهد که استفاده از مفهوم شناسایی، درک بهتری از تلاش روسیه برای ارتقای جایگاهش در عرصۀ جهانی ارائه می‌کند و فهم انگیزه‌های رفتار سیاست خارجی این کشور را آسان‌تر می‌سازد. در این نوشتار تلاش می‌کنیم تا با بهره‌گیری از مفهوم سیاست شناسایی در چارچوب نظریۀ سازه‌انگاری به تحلیل رفتار سیاست خارجی روسیه در خاورمیانه توجه و بر این نکته تأکید کنیم که فهم گفتمان سیاست خارجی روسیه با رویکردهای غالب اثبات‌گرایانه و واقع‌گرایانه مانند واقع‌گرایی و بدون توجه به عنصر هویت و سیاست شناسایی، به‌درستی دست‌یافتنی نیست. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| خاورمیانه؛ روسیه؛ سازه‌انگاری؛ سیاست خارجی؛ سیاست شناسایی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Impact of Recognition Policy on Russia’s Foreign Policy Discourse (Case Study: Middle East) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Armina Arm1؛ Kayhan Barzegar2 | ||
| 1PhD Student of International Relations, Faculty of Divinity, Political Science and Law, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch | ||
| 2Associate Professor of International Relations, Faculty of Divinity, Political Science and Law, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The struggle for recognition is one of the reasons of conflicts in world politics which affects the behavior of international actors. National culture and identity are very important in the process of shaping acountry’s foreign policy discourse. Basic philosophical beliefs about the self-image of the country, perceptions of friends and foes, and assumptions about the history and nature of international relations shape foreign policy ideas and concepts. Indeed, Actors’ identity is formed through the recognition or non-recognition of ‘others’ and is constantly redefined by others. This article seeks to answer the question of what role identity politics and recognition policy play in Russia’s foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. From this perspective, the escalation of tensions between Russia and the United States often involves the lack of recognition from the West for Russia’s “great power” status and equal partnership in the international system. The main argument of the paper is that the discrepancy between the “great power” image and the Western image of Russia, along with the Russian aspiration to achieve great power status in the world order, has shaped the main narrative of Russia’s foreign policy discourse. From a historical perspective, Russia has sought to strengthen its position and security by using a variety of strategies as well as maximizing existing potentials and to enhance its capacity to play a major role in international politics. Since Russia’s rise in international politics, it has considered itself as a major power in world politics. But this understanding of the ‘self’ and its position was not recognized by other international actors except for brief moments. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has sought to achieve the status of “great power” and to influence global equations by redefining its role and identity in international politics. In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia went through a period of dramatic domestic political change and uncertainty in the foreign policy arena. A country that was once a superpower in a bipolar world began to doubt its place in the international system. This, coupled with frequent changes in the scope and orientations of foreign policy, apparently made Russia’s foreign policy unstable. The relative improvement of Russian economic conditions, the US inactivity in global and regional policies alongside the aspiration of great power rooted in Russia’s national identity and history have provided the country with an opportunity to pursue a revisionist foreign policy. Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in 2000 led Russian politics to move into a completely different direction from the Yeltsin government and other Westernizers in Russia. Putin’s foreign policy doctrine, while emphasizing the status of great power, created a geopolitical discourse that contrasted Russia with the United States. Putin is the manifestation of the emergence of a new identity in Russia, an identity that is not purely Western or Eurasian, but a genuine identity based on Russia’s unique characteristics. With the adoption of an aggressive foreign policy, especially in Ukraine and the Syrian crisis, Russia seeks to consolidate its position in the international system and fight against the US unilateralism in international crises. For the Russian elite, its status in the world order has equal or even greater value than security and economic concerns. Therefore, Russia is currently seeking to achieve equal status with the United States in the international system with an active and decisive presence in international and regional crises, emphasizing that without Moscow’s role it is impossible to come up with a solution to the international crisis. In this regard, one of the main goals of Russia’s military presence in the Syrian crisis is to affirm its position as a major world power. This article suggests that using recognition policy alongside the constructivism theory will provide a better understanding of Russia’s efforts to promote its global position and make it easier to understand its foreign policy incentives. Accordingly, Russia’s identity and its aspirations for a position of great power have played an important role in shaping national interests and, consequently, in foreign policy, especially in Putin's time. The main claim of the paper is that understanding Russia’s foreign policy with realistic approaches cannot be achieved. Therefore, in order to fill the existing vacuum, this study uses the politics of recognition in the framework of constructivism to analyze Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The findings of this paper indicate that the main purpose of Russian foreign policy discourse, along with maximizing power and wealth, is to identify and restore the position of great power in the international system. The Syrian crisis has provided Russia with an opportunity to consolidate its position in the emerging global and regional order after years of active and widespread presence in the Middle East in addition to countering US unilateralism. In this regard, the authors believe that the question of recognizing Russia’s position in the international system by the West has played a major role in shaping its national interests. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Constructivism, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Politics of Recognition, Russia | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
A) Persian
1. Bahrami Moghadam, Sajad and Aliasghar Sotoodeh (2014), “Identity Debates and Russia’s Foreign Policy Transformation”, Iranian Journal of International Policy Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 23-43.
2. Barzegar, Kayhan (2019), “Russia’s Game in the East”, Tabnak, Available at: https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news, (Accessed on: 17/01/2019).
3. Koolaee, Elaheh and Alireza Noori (2007), “The Evolution of Russian Foreign Policy during Putin’s Era”, Law and Political Science Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 377-394.
4. Wendt, Alexander (2005), Social Theory of International Politics, Translated by Homeira Moshirzadeh, Tehran: Institute for Political and International Studies.
B) English
1. Batalov, Eduard (2005), World Development and World Order: an Analysis of Contemporary American Theories, Moscow: POSSPEN.
2. Browning, Christopher (2008), “Reassessing Putin’s Project: Reflections on IR Theory and the West”, Problems of Post-Communism,No.55, pp. 3–13.
3. Clunan, Anne (2009), The Social Construction of Russia’s Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.
4. Connolly, R. (2015), “Troubled Times: Stagnation, Sanctions and the Prospects for Economic Reform in Russia”, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Available at: https://www.chathamhouse. org, (Accessed on: 15/12/2017).
5. Dyson, Stephen B. (2001), “Drawing Policy Implications from the Operational Code of a New Political Actor: Russian President Vladimir Putin”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 329–346.
6. Fearon, James and Alexander Wendt (2005), “Rationalism v. Contructivism: a Skeptical View”, in: Walter Carlsnaes,Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons(ed.), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 52-72.
7. Hill, F. (2013), “The Real Reason Putin Supports Assad”, Foreign Affairs, Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com, (Accessed on: 28/3/2013).
8. Honneth, A. (1995), The Struggle for Recognition: the Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, Cambridge: MIT Press.
9. Honneth, A. (2015), “Education and the Democratic Public Sphere: a Neglected Chapter of Political Philosophy”, in: Jonas Jakobsen and Odin Lysaker (eds.), Recognition and Freedom: Axel Honneth’s Political Thought, Leiden: Brill, pp. 17-33.
10. Hopf, T. (1998), “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”, International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 171-200.
11. Hopf, T. (2004), “Russia’s Place in the World an Exit Option?”, Russiavotes, Available at: http://www.russiavotes.org, (Accessed on: 28/1/2013).
12. Hopf, T. (2013), “Common Sense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics”, International Organization, Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 317-354.
13. Kolobov, Oleg and Alexander Kornilov (2011), “Middle East Policy of Russia under President Medvedev: Strategies, Institutes, Faces”, Bilge Strateji, Issue 2, No. 4, Available at: http://www.academia.edu/, (Accessed on: 25/7/2012).
14. Lavrov, Sergey, (2013), “Russia’s Foreign Policy Philosophy”, International Affairs, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 1-7.
15. LeDonne, John (1997), The Russian Empire and the World, 1700–1917: the Geopolitics of Expansion and Containment, Oxford University Press.
16. Lindemann, Thomas (2011), “Peace through Recognition: an Interactionist Interpretation of International Crises”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 68–86.
17. Oliker, O., K. Crane and C. Yusupov (2009), “Russian Foreign Policy: Sources and Implications”, RAND Report, Santa Monica, Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ monographs/2009/RAND_MG768.pdf, (Accessed on: 12/10/2017).
18. Omelicheva, Mariya Y. and Lidiya Zubytska (2016), “An Unending Quest for Russia’s Place in the World: the Discursive Co-evolution of the Study and Practice of International Relations in Russia”, New Perspectives, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 19-51.
19. Price, Richard and Christian Reus-Smit (1998), “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constrictivism”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 28-49.
20. Renshon, Jonathan (2017), Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
21. Ringmar, Eric (2002), “The Recognition Game: Soviet Russia against the West”, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 115–136.
22. Ringmar, E. (2012), The International Politics of Recognition, Boulder: Co./Londres, Paradigm Publishers.
23. “Russia’s National Security Strategy” (2000), Jan. 11, Available at: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/ 37442, (Accessed on: 13/10/2014).
24. Sakwa, Richard (2008), “New Cold War or Twenty Years’ Crisis? Russia and International Politics”, International Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 241–267.
25. Shumilin, Alexander (2016), “Russia’s Diplomacy in the Middle East, Back to Geopolitics”, Russie-Nei, No. 93, pp. 1-28.
26. Taylor, C. (1992), “The Politics of Recognition”, in: A. Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 25-74.
27. Torkunov, Anatoly (2004), Contemporary International Relations and World Politics, Moscow: MGIMO.
28. Trenin, Dmitri (2009), “Russia’s Spheres of Interest, not Influence”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 3-22.
29. Trenin, Dmitri (2010), “Russia’s Policy in the Middle East: Prospects for Consensus and Conflict with the United States”, The Century Foundation, New York, Available at: www.tcf.org, (Accessed on: 14/1/2013).
30. Troitskiy, Mikhail (2016), “The Need to Massage Egos: Status Politics as a Crucial Element of US-Russia Relations”, PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, No. 445, pp. 28-31.
31. Tsygankov, Andrei P. (2010), “National Ideology and IR Theory: Three Incarnations of the ‘Russian Idea’”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 663– 686.
32. Tsygankov, Andrei P. (2012), Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Tsygankov, A. P. (2013), Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
34. Tsygankov, Andrei (2014), “The Frustrating Partnership: Honor, Status and Emotions in Russia’s Discourses of the West”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 47, Nos. 3-4, pp. 345-354.
35. Waltz, Kenneth (1979), Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
36. Wendt, Alexander (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, New York and Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
37. Wendt, A. (2003), “Why a World State is Inevitable”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 491-542.
38. Wohlforth, W., B. De Carvalho, H. Leira and I. Neumann (2017), “Moral Authority and Status in International Relations: Good States and the Social Dimension of Status Seeking”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 526-546. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 922 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 668 |
||