پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,532 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,502 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,117,239 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,222,476 |
نظریۀ بازی‌ها و فرازونشیب روابط روسیه و اتحادیۀ اروپا در هزارۀ جدید | ||
| مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 12، شماره 2، مهر 1398، صفحه 399-417 اصل مقاله (820.11 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2019.264783.449791 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سعید عطار1؛ مرضیه تاجمیری* 2 | ||
| 1دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه یزد | ||
| 2دانش‌آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه یزد | ||
| چکیده | ||
| از گذشته تاکنون، روابط روسیه و اروپا از مهم‌ترین موضوع‌ها در میان تحلیل‌گران روابط بین‌الملل بوده و در مطالعات متعدد تلاش شده است این روابط، از چشم‌اندازهای نظری متفاوتی تحلیل شود. نظریۀ بازی‌ها از جدیدترین ابزارهای تحلیلی در مطالعات روابط بین‌الملل است. نوشتار حاضر با استفاده از نظریۀ بازی‌ها و بهره‌گیری از روش پژوهش کیفی و ابزار مطالعات اسنادی، تلاش می‌کند به این پرسش پاسخ دهد که چه بازی‌هایی در روابط روسیه و اتحادیۀ اروپا در سال‌های 2000 تا 2018 وجود داشته است؟ نتیجه‌های این نوشتار نشان می‌دهد که در سال‌های 2000 تا 2004، عملکرد بازیگران همراه با بدبینی متأثر از فضای امنیتی بحران کوزوو، با شرایط حاکم بر بازی معمای زندانی هم‌خوانی دارد که پس از آن به‌دلیل سطح وابستگی اقتصادی-تجاری، مجاورت جغرافیایی و تروریسم به بازی دست به ماشه تبدیل می‌شود. در سال‌های 2004 تا 2008 با وقوع انقلاب‌های نارنجی، استقرار سپر دفاع موشکی و جنگ گرجستان، به‌تدریج سیاست همسایگی اروپا در برابر سیاست همسایگی روسیه قرار گرفته است و بازی با حاصل جمع صفر شکل می‌گیرد. در سال‌های 2008 تا 2012 پیشنهاد مدودیف مبنی بر نظم نوین امنیتی به همراه بحران مالی و ضرورت تأمین امنیت انرژی به محرکی مهم برای چرخش در سیاست‌های تقابلی و شکل‌گیری بازی شکار گوزن تبدیل می‌شود؛ ولی در ادامه مشکلات مربوط به حقوق بشر، شدت‌گیری رقابت در حوزۀ انرژی و شکل‌گیری بحران‌های سوریه و اوکراین دو بازیگر را در مسیر بدون بازگشت تقابل در قالب بازی جوانک ترسو -که تاکنون (2018) نیز ادامه دارد- هدایت کرده است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| اتحادیۀ اروپا؛ راهبرد؛ روسیه؛ سیاست خارجی؛ نظریۀ بازی‌ها | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Game Theory and the Ups and Downs of Russian-European Relations in the New Millennium | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Saeed Attar1؛ Marzieh Tajmiri2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor of Political Science, Yazd University | ||
| 2M. A. in International Relations, Yazd University | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The relationship between Russia and the European Union as two rational actors has had many ups and downs. In order to explain these developments scientifically, it seems necessary to use an appropriate analytical model. The theory of games, focusing on the logic of co-operation, interactions and differences among actors, can be a precise framework for understanding Russia-EU relations. Thus, the present research attempts to use games theory to answer the question of how Russia’s and European Union’s upward and downward relations can be investigated within the considered time horizon (2000-2018) which includes the causes and roots of the convergence and divergence in their stances, the types of decisions and decision-making under crisis conditions. To answer this question, the qualitative and documentary research methods have been used. Research findings show that during 2000 and 2004 actors’ behaviors, which was affected by the pessimism in the wake of the security situation of the Kosovo crisis, are consistent with the conditions governing the prisoner’s puzzle, which considering the level of commercial and economic interdependence, geographical proximity and terrorism related issues turns into a trigger strategy in the game theory. During 2004 to 2008, with the advent of the Orange Revolution, the deployment of the Missile Defense Shield and the Russo-Georgian war, the European Neighborhood Policy is gradually being set against Russia’s neighborhood policy, forming a zero-sum game. In the years 2008 and 2012, Medvedev’s proposal for a new security order, along with issues such as the financial crisis and the need for energy security, became a major driver for a turnaround in countering policies, thus forming the stag hunt game; thereafter, however, issues such as human rights, the intensification of competition in the energy sector, and the formation of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises put two actors on an inevitable head-on collision course, and turn it to the game of the chicken, which is still ongoing. Conclusion Given the eighteen-year evolution of Russian-EU relations and the logic of the various games of this era, the following general conclusions can be drawn: 1. General areas of divergence and convergence Russian-European Union relations have always been influenced by climate change, the rise of China and other economic powers, non-proliferation and, of course, energy as a destabilizing and threatening factor, both of which are relatively intense. And they all further have been influenced by the divergence and convergence of Russia and the European Union. Despite these partnerships, differentiating and challenging factors such as the expansion of NATO and the European Union, competition for energy resources in the Caspian Sea, the European Union’s willingness to cooperate with Eastern European countries, the European Union’s efforts to influence and expand its relations with countries Central Asia and the Caucasus have always been influential in their ties. Hence the relations between the two actors to eighteen years on the one hand were influenced by geopolitical, political, security, human rights and conflicting interests, which led on its turn to discourse, normative and identity disconnect, atmosphere of suspicion, ambiguity, tension and competition in the EU-Russia relationship; on the other hand, factors such as geographical proximity, new international challenges and threats, and interdependence— Russia’s need for Western capital and technology to develop and EU's energy needs and imperative of cooperation with Russia in stabilizing and securing Eurasia— have pushed Brussels and Moscow inevitably to continue their cooperation and crisis management at least in the medium term. 2. The Big Game – Russia’s move to a position of influential power and confrontation with the European Union Investigating the developments from 1999 to 2018 shows Russia’s upward trend in achieving internal stability and, consequently, providing a broad and important role in the external arena. In other words, a weak and passive Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union will find a new place in the power equations over time. So the whole process is on the one hand Russia’s coming to power. But along this route there are ups and downs. Russia is pursuing models of cooperation and confrontation to achieve its goals in Europe and in the world. First, it starts with confidence in Europe, and through various phases of trials and errors, which come with many benefits and costs, it tries to follow a path that is not a good sign for Europeans. On the other hand, this upward trend and Russia’s actions in this, in the eyes of the Europeans, become something more than co-operation for the common good; in fact, Russia has raised Europeans’ perception of threat and therefore this game has no meaning for Europe; that a new Russia is coming to power. Naturally, there is a great deal of backlash among these players, and Europe cannot and will not want the former Soviet Union to show its power once again in the Russian Federation. So the reason for Europe’s on and off conflicting games is clear to us. Therefore, wherever co-operative game increases Russia’s power and ability to confront Europe, Europe abandons cooperation and resort to confrontation. 3. EU-Russian relations - successive games and ups and downs of Russian-EU relations The end point of this debate is the point of confrontation between Europe and Russia. The conflict that has continued to this day and the parties have maintained their leverage over each other. On the one hand, Russia’s pressure on the countries concerned, the energy crisis and, of course, the Syrian crisis, and the pressure on Europe that comes from not resolving this crisis, and on the other, the extension of Russian sanctions, NATO expansion to the East, and European human rights issues still cast a shadow over their relationships. Given the developments and the issues raised, it seems that Russia and Europe continue to walk on a tightrope. These confrontations, which are a function of local, regional and international factors, give rise to sinusoidal relationships of cooperation and non-cooperation and action as per different games with different strategies. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| EU, Foreign Policy, Game Theory, Russia, Strategy | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
A) Persian
1. Abolhassan Shirazi, Habiballah (2016), “Comparative Study of Russian Foreign Policy during Putin and Medvedev”, International Relations, Vol. 9, No. 33, pp. 59-56.
2. Aghaei, Seyed Davood, Bahaddin Maryami and Ali Khalilipour Roknabadi (2014), “New NATO Strategies in the Framework of the Lisbon Declaration of 2010 against the Russian Federation”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 21-36.
3. Aghaei, Seyyed Davood and Alireza Samoodi (2013), “Areas of Conflict and Competition between the European Union and Russia”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, Vol. 82, pp. 1-28.
4. Ahmad Khan Beigi, Samaneh (2013), “The Impact of American and European Policy toward the Syrian Crisis on Transatlantic Disagreements”, Foreign Policy Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 1013-1030.
5. Ahmadian, Ghodrat, Saleh Boloki and Maryam Saremi Fard (2012), “The New Strategic Concept of NATO (2010) and its Security Consequences in NATO-Russia Relations”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, No. 80, pp. 1-3.
6. Ajili, Hadi and Leila Ahar (2014), “The Role of the Economic and Financial Interests of Russia and the European Union in the Crisis of Ukraine (2014)”, Economic and Political Quarterly, No. 298, pp. 58-73.
7. Daheshyar, Hossein (2014), “Russian Foreign Policy towards Ukraine: the Inevitability of the Crisis”, Foreign Relations Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 83-122.
8. Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyyed Jalal and Sayed Rahman Mousavi (2011), “Indicators of Russia’s Energy Security Strategy towards the European Union”, Afagh Security Quarterly, No. 12, pp. 37-66.
9. Haghshenas, Mohammadjavad and Amin Bavir (2011), “The Methods of Russia’s Encounter with Nato’s Development to the East”, Studies of International Relations, Vol. 4, No. 16, pp. 9-34.
10. Heydari, Mohammad Ali and Hamid Rahnavard (2008), “Georgia in the Prospect of Neighborhood Policy of the European Union”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 49-66.
11. Ilkhanipour, Ali and Somayeh Bahrami (2013), “The Effect of Energy Effect on Russia-EU Relations”, Central Asia and the Caucasus Studies, No. 81, pp. 29-58.
12. Karami, Jahangir (2005), Developments in Russian Foreign Policy, Government Identity and the West Issue, Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
13. Kiani, Davood (2009), “New Transatlanticism and its Influence on EU-Russia Relations”, Strategic Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 51, pp. 169-179.
14. Mirfakhraei, Seyyed Hassan (2007), “The Crisis of the US Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe: Objectives and Consequences”, Law and Policy Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 22, pp. 99-140.
15. Niakoui, Seyyed Amir, Morteza Bagian Zarchi and Seyyed Hamid Hosseini (2011), “EU Energy Policies and Reduction of Russian Dependency”, Political and International Approaches Quarterly, No. 30, pp. 193-226.
16. Niknami, Roxana (2015), “Measuring the Impact and Effectiveness of Sanctions: EU-Imposed Measures against Russia”, Foreign Relations Quarterly, No. 25, pp. 7-38.
17. Omidi, Ali, Ehsan Gholamzadeh and Fatemeh Fahimi (2012), “An Analysis of Iranian-American Conflict in the Nuclear Program in the Framework of Game Theory”, International Journal of Political and International Knowledge, No. 1, pp. 121-112.
18. Panduston, William (2012), Convict of Prisoner, Translated by Abbas Ali Kitayeri, Tehran: Maziar.
19. Tabatabaei, Mohammad and Razieh Hazrati (2014), “The Impact of 9/11 on Improving the Status of Russia in the International System (2001-2012)”, International Relations, No. 28, pp. 167-197.
20. Vosoughi, Saeed, Masoomeh Zarei Hedek and Mohammad Zarei Hadak (2015), “Energy Interaction Strategy in the Relations between Russia and the European Union”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 8, No. 18, pp. 127-148.
21. Zarei Hedek, Masoumeh (2012), Russian Foreign Policy in the EU during the Putin Period, Tehran: Ava Press.
B) English
1. Arbatova, Nadia Alexandrova (2008), “European Security after the Kosovo Crisis: the Role of Russia”, Russian Academy of Sciences, Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 14683850108454637, (Accessed on: 10/12/2018).
2. Belyi, Andrei V. (2003), “New Dimensions of Energy Security of the Enlarging EU and Their Impact on Relations with Russia”, Taylor and Francis, European Integration, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 351–369.
3. Black, J. L. (2015), The Russian Presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, 2008–12,New York: Routledge.
4. Buckley Caitlin A. (2012), “Learning from Libya, Acting in Syria”, Journal of Strategic Security (JSS), Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 81-104.
5. Carmichael, Fiona (2005), A Guide to Game Theory, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
6. Delcour, Laure (2007), “Does the European Neighborhood Policy Make a Difference? Policy Patterns and Reception in Ukraine and Russia”, European Political Economy Review, No. 7, pp. 118-155.
7. Dimitrova, Antoinette and Rilke Dragneva (2009), “Constraining External Governance: Interdependence with Russia and the CIS as Limits to the EU’s Rule Transfer in the Ukraine”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 853–872.
8. Donaldson Robert, Joseph L. Nogee and Vidya Nadkarni (2015), The Foreign Policy of Russia (Changing Systems, Enduring Interests), New York: Routledge, Fifth Edition.
9. Ferrero-Waldner, Benita (2007), “The European Union and the World: a Hard Look at Soft Power”, Columbia University, Sep. 24, Available at: http://data.ellispub.com/pdf/EN/2007/Rapid/ SPEECH-07-576_EN.pdf, (Accessed on: 5/8/2018).
10. Hyde-Price, Adrian (2008), “A ‘Tragic Actor’? a Realist Perspective on Ethical Power Europe”, International Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp. 29-44.
11. Joenniemi, Petti (2011), “The Georgian–Russian Conflict: Acute, Frozen or Settled?”, in: Alexander Astrov, The Great Power; (Miss) Management, England: Ashgate, pp. 103-115.
12. Kreps, M. David, Paul Milgrom, John Roberts and Robert Wilson (1982), “Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 245-252.
13. Mankoff, Jeffrey (2009), Eurasian Energy Security, Council Special Report, No. 43, Council on Foreign Relations.
14. Mankoff, Jeffrey (2010), “Internal and External Impact of Russia’s Economic Crisis”, Ifri, pp. 1-25, Available at: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifriengeconomiccrisisinrussiamankofffevrier2010.pdf, (Accessed on: 10/7/2017).
15. Mankoff, Jeffrey (2014), “Russia’s Latest Land Grab; How Putin Won Crimea and Lost Ukraine”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 60, pp. 60-68.
16. Marten, Kimberly (2015), “Putin’s Choices: Explaining Russian Foreign Policy and Intervention in Ukraine”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 189–204.
17. Narahari, Y. (2008), “Game Theory”, Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science,Available at: https://docplayer.net/22509290-Game-theory-lecture-notes-by-y-narahari-department-of-computer-science-and-automation-indian-institute-of-science-bangalore-india-july-2012.html, (Accessed on: 10/7/2017).
18. Orenstein, Mitchell A. (2014), “Putin’s Western Allies, Why Europe’s Far Right is on the Kremlin’s Side”, Foreign Affairs, pp. 1-3.
19. Portela, Clara (2012), “The EU Sanctions Operation in Syria: Conflict Management by Other Means”, UNISCI Discussion Papers, No. 30, pp. 151-158.
20. Samokhvalov, Vsevolod (2007), “Relations in the Russia-Ukraine-EU Triangle: ‘Zero-Sum Game’ or not?”, EUISS, No. 68, pp. 1-43.
21. Sherr, James (2009), “The Implications of the Russia-Georgia War for European Security”, in: Svante E. Cornell and S. Frederick Starr, The Guns of August 2008: Russia’s War in Georgia,New York: The Studies of Central Asia and the Caucasus, pp. 196-225.
22. Sokov, Nikolai (2000), “Russia’s Military Doctrine”, NTI, Available at: https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russias-2000-military-doctrine/, (Accessed on: 21/12/2018).
23. Tema, Malvinas (2014), “Basic Assumptions in Game Theory and International Relations”, International Relations Quarterly,Vol. 5, No. 1, Available at: https://www.southeast-europe.org/pdf/17/ dke_17_a_e_Malvina-Tema_Game-Theory-and-IR.pdf, (Accessed on: 14/7/2018).
24. Trenin, Dimitri (2007), “Russia Redefines itself and its Relations with the West”, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 95-105.
25. Trenin, Dmitri, Maria Lipman and Alexey Malashenko (2013), “The End of an Era in EU-Russia Relations”, Carnegie Moscow Center, pp. 1-30, Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/ files/new_era_russia_eu.pdf, (Accessed on: 8/6/2017).
26. Tsygankov, Andrei P. (2016), Russia’s Foreign Policy; Change and Continuity in National Identity, Rowman and Littlefield.
27. Tumanov, Sergey, Alexander Gasparishvili and Fkaterina Romanova (2011), “Russia–EU Relations, or How the Russians Really View the EU”, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 120-141.
28. Wilson, Andrew and Nicu Popescu (2009), “Russian and European Neighborhood Policies Compared”, Taylor and Francis, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 317–331. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,495 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 634 |
||