پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,240 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,871 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,427,347 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,196,377 |
پویایی درون‌نهادی و تأثیر آن بر دیپلماسی راه دوم میان ایالات متحد آمریکا و روسیه | ||
| مطالعات اوراسیای مرکزی | ||
| مقاله 15، دوره 16، شماره 1، شهریور 1402، صفحه 245-272 اصل مقاله (739.87 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcep.2022.346775.450092 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رکسانا نیکنامی* 1؛ مریم ابوالحسینی2 | ||
| 1استادیار، گروه مطالعات منطقه ای، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانش آموختۀدکتری روابط بین‌الملل، پردیس بین‌الملل کیش، دانشگاه تهران، کیش، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| روابط ایالات متحد آمریکا و فدراسیون روسیه در دوران جنگ سرد و پس از آن همواره از دشمنی آشکار تا رقابت در نوسان بوده است. چه در دوران جنگ سرد و چه در دورۀ پس از آن، فرایندهای دیپلماسی راه دوم به‌عنوان سازوکاری سازمان‌یافته و نهادینه، مکمل دیپلماسی رسمی دو کشور بوده است. در این نوشتار به‌دنبال پاسخ این پرسش هستیم که عوامل نهادی داخلی چگونه به پیگیری دیپلماسی راه دوم در تحقق منافع آمریکا و روسیه در دوران جنگ سرد و پس از آن منجر شده است؟ در پاسخ این فرضیه مطرح می‌شود که در سازگاری با مسیر تاریخی طی‌شده در دوران جنگ سرد، لزوم تأمین منافع راهبردی و پایدار هر کشور، استفاده از نهادهایی با ارتباطات گسترده با دولت و روابط شکل‌گرفته در فرایندهای غیررسمی، موجب تداوم این مسیر از دیپلماسی در روابط آمریکا و روسیه شده است. برای آزمون این فرضیه از نظریۀ نهادگرایی تاریخی و به‌طور مشخص عنصر «هم‌پایانی» بهره گرفته‌ایم. در این زمینه، برای بررسی عوامل یکسانی که برایند مشابهی را در دو دورۀ متفاوت ایجاد کرده است؛ از روش تاریخی ـ تطبیقی بر مبنای مقایسۀ دو دورۀ زمانی جنگ سرد و دوران پس از آن استفاده کرده‌ایم. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان میدهد که تداوم الگوی نهادی در هر دو دوره، مشترک است، ولی تغییر در سطح منافع و ورود نهادهایی با فاصلۀ زیاد از مراکز قدرت، موجب کاهش تأثیرگذاری این فرایندها بر جریان‌های رسمی در دورۀ متأخر شده است. هرچند که کمیت مسیرها و نهادهای دخالت‌کننده افزایش آشکاری داشته است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| دیپلماسی راه دوم؛ نهادگرایی؛ هم‌پایانی؛ جنگ سرد؛ دارتموث؛ پاگواش | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Intra-Institutional Dynamics and Its Impact on US-Russian Track-Two Diplomacy | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Roxana Niknami1؛ Maryam Abolhoseiny2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Depertment of Regional studies, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Ph. D. in International Relations, Kish International Campus, University of Tehran, Kish, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: US relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and with the Russian Federation thereafter have fluctuated from open hostility to competition. However, during and after the Cold War, Track-Two diplomacy, as an organized and institutionalized mechanism, have complemented the official diplomacy between the two countries. During the cold war, the high level of mistrust and hostility between the two superpowers, which sometimes led to the blockage of official relations, forced both sides to use Track-Two diplomacy. But despite ending of systemic competition and changing in the U.S. - Russian relations during the post-collapse era, Track-Two diplomacy continued with the characteristics of the previous era. Research Question: Considering what has been said, the question is how did intra-organizational dynamics lead to the pursuit of Track-Two diplomacy in realizing US and Russian interests during and after the Cold War? Research Hypothesis: The hypothesis of the research is that according to the historical path taken during the Cold War, the need to provide the strategic and sustainable interests of each country, the use of institutions with close ties with the government and interactions formed among the participants in informal processes, have caused the continuation of Track-Two diplomacy in U.S. - Russian relations in post-collapse era. Methodology and Theoretical Framework: To test the above hypothesis, the theory of “historical institutionalism” has been used. The emphasis of this paper is on the "equation" which is one of the main elements of the theory of historical institutionalism. In this direction and examining the same factors that had the same result in two different periods, the historical-comparative method is based on the comparison of the two periods of the Cold War and after the Cold War. The method of collecting information in this research is qualitative and based on documentary method. Results and Discussion: Studying the process of Track-Two diplomacy between the United States and the Soviet Union and its future developments in the post collapse period indicates the necessity of using informal relations to realize foreign policy goals and strategic interests that could not be pursued through official channels. Due to a wall of mistrust between the two countries, Washington and Moscow have faced numerous challenges to reach any kind of agreement. The existence of a growing gap and mistrust at official levels has made it necessary to use government institutions or institutions trusted by governments to implement controlled informal diplomacy in such a way that even the use of Track-Two diplomacy, the experienced people of the two countries resumed the processes with institutionalization in the post-Soviet era. All considered cases were examined in the field of equation, pursuit of benefits resulting from sustainable requirements, dimensions of coalition building interactions and the level of communication between the institutions involved with the center of power. During the Cold War era, there were several strategic interests: improving domestic capabilities, ensuring global strategic stability, and the need for direct communication with the opposing country's society. The adopted strategy was to use institutions or formal institutions with close ties to the government, which led to coalition-building interactions. In the post-collapse period, coalition-building interactions continued but the strategic interests were reduced to geopolitical - regional levels and maintaining the relative level of relations. These goals are generally pursued by non-governmental organizations. Among the three common causal factors in the equation of the two periods of the time, during the Cold War, the ability of Track-Two diplomacy to realize strategic interests is the most important factor. While in the post-collapse era, coalition building interaction is an influential factor. The comparison of the two research periods shows many similarities and differences. The similarities are: the use of the institutional model in Track-Two diplomacy processes, having a high level of support from the governments and the existence of coalition-building interactions in the realization of strategic interests. The most important similarity is the realization of strategic interests which is supported by the highest levels of governance in both periods. This support has been extended to different levels of governance in the post-collapse era. The development of this support is the result of coalition-building interactions formed in the processes of Track-Two diplomacy. The existence of interactions and high-level support in both periods indicates the correspondence of the Track-Two diplomacy in the post Cold War era with its historical path in the Cold War period. Differences can be seen in several fields. As mentioned above, strategic interests are reduced both quantitatively and qualitatively. Participating institutions are increased quantitatively and changed procedurally and substantively. They are changed from 9 governmental institutions to 21 non-governmental institutions. Criticism and opposition to the processes are reduced from the military and security level during the Cold War to the expert level during the post-collapse era. The achievements of Track-Two diplomacy are also decreased in terms of effectiveness. During the Cold War, Track-Two diplomacy processes influenced strategic plans. But in the post-collapse era, they are just a tool for adjusting and re-adjusting relationships. Conclusion: The findings show that the continuity of the institutional model is common in both periods but the change in the level of interests and the entry of institutions far from the power centers have reduced the impact of these processes on official paths in the next period. On the other hand, the number of involved pathways and institutions in Track-Two diplomacy processes has significantly increased. Finally, in a general summary of the comparison, it can be said that during the Cold War, the track diplomacy between the United States and the Soviet Union was strengthened and effective. However, after the Cold War, US- Russia Track-Two diplomacy was developed but it did not have much impact. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Track-Two Diplomacy, Institutionalism, Equation, Cold War, Dartmouth, Pugwash | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmad, Mahmood, and Qadar Bakhsh Baloch (2007), "Behind the Scene: The Contributions of Think Tanks in U.S. Policy-Making" The Dialogue, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 99-120, Available at: https://www.qurtuba.edu.pk/thedialogue/ The%20Dialogue/2_2/4_M_Ahmad.pdf. (Accessed on: 13/2/2021). Babbitt, Eileen (2009) "The Evolution of International Conflict Resolution: From Cold War to Peacebuilding", Negotiation Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 539-549, (doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00244.x) Barbashin, Anton, and Alexander Graef (2019), Thinking Foreign Policy in Russia: Think Tanks and Grand Narratives, Washington, D.C.: Atlantic Council. Belfer Center for Science and InternationalAffairs (2022), About: Overview, History, Available at: https://www.belfercenter.org/about/overview/history, (Accessed on: 2/4/2022) Berman, Edward H. (1983). The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Dallas, Paloma, and Melinda Gilmore (2010), The Dartmouth Conference: The First 50 Years, Dayton: Kettering Foundation. Davis Center (2022), Academic Program, Available at: https://daviscenter.fas. harvard.edu/academic-programs, (Accessed on: 10/1/2022). Elbe Group (2022), Special Initative Elbe Group, Available at: https://www.belfercenter.org/elbe-group/overview-elbe-group, (Accessed on: 10/1/2022) Elgie, Robert (2014), "The Institutional Approach to Political Leadership" in: Good Democratic Leadership: On Prudence and Judgment in Modern Democracies, by John Kane and Haig Patapan, Oxford: Oxford University press. Esalen Institute (2021) Esalen’s Half-Century of Pioneering Cultural Initiatives 1962 to 2019, Available at: https://www.esalen.org/ctr/past-initiatives- See All Initatives, (Accessed on: 7/20/2021). Fioretos, Orfeo (2017), "International Politics and Institutions in Time" International Politics and Institutions in Time, by Orfeo Fioretos, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fioretos, Orfeo, Tulia Falleti, and Adam Sheingate (2016), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guins, George (1953), "The Academy of Sciences of the USSR", The Russian Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 269-278, (doi:10.2307/125959). Haass, Richard (2002), "Think Tanks and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Policy-Maker's Perspective", U.S Foreign Policy Agenda,Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 5-9, Available at: https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/15506.htm Hall, Peter (2016), "Politics as a Process Structured in Space and Time", in: The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism, by Orfeo Fioretos, Tulia G. Falleti and Adam Sheingate, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, Peter and Rosemary Taylor (1996), "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms" Political Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 936-957, (doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x) Imbrie, Andrew and Elsa Kania (2019), Great Powers Options, Challenges, and Lessons Learned for Pragmatic Engagement, Washington: Center for Security and Emerging Technology. Koolaee, Elaheh and Jafar Khashe (2011), “An Analysis of Russia-United Stated Relations in light of Obama’s “Reset” Policy”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp. 79-98, [in Persian] Kramer, Mark (1990), "The Role of The CPSU International Department in Soviet Foreign Relations and National Security Policy", Soviet Studies, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 429-446, (doi:10.1080/09668139008411880) Krasnyak, Olga (2020), "Science Diplomacy and Soviet-American Academic and Technical Exchanges" The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 398-408, (doi:10.1163/1871191X-BJA10025) MGIMO-Fletcher Conference Series (2022), MGIMO-Fletcher Conference Series Grand Challenges in Russia- U.S. Relations, Available at: https://sites.tufts.edu/mgimo/.(Accessed on:10/1/2022) Mosallanejad, Abbas (2014), “Russia's Strategic Balance and Security Policy Making in International System”, Central Eurasia Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 121-140, (doi: 10.22059/JCEP.2014.36774) [in Persian]. Mouritsen, Jan (1994), "Rationality, Institutions and Decision Making", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19. No. 2, pp. 193-211, (doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(94)90018-3). Muller, Robert (2019), Report on The Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Available at: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. (Accessed on: 16/3/2022). Office of Science and Technology Policy (2022), White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/. (Accessed on: 16/3/2022) Pallin, Carolina and Susanne Oxenstierna (2017), Russian Think Tanks and Soft Power, Stockholm: Swedish Defence Research Agency. Peters, Guy (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science, The New Institutionalism, London and New York: PINTER. Saunders, Harold, Teddy Nemeroff, Priya Narayan Parker, Randa M. Slim, and Philip D. Stewart (2011), Sustained Dialogue in Conflicts; Transformation and Change, New York: St. Martin’s Press LLC. Schweitzer, Glenn (2004), Scientists, Engineers, and Track-Two Diplomacy: A Half-Century of U.S.-Russian Interacademy Cooperation, Washington: The National Academies Press. Sher, Gerson (2019), From Pugwash To Putin. A Critical History of US-Soviet Scientific Cooperation, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Steinmo, Seven (2008), "Historical Institutionalism", in: Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, Donatella Della Porta and Michael Keating, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stent, Angela (2014), The Limits of Partnership : U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stewart, Philip (2020), Breaking Barriers in US - Russia Relations: The Power and Promise of Citizen Diplomacy, Ohio: Kettering Foundation Press. Stewart, Philip (2021), Six Decades of US-Russian Citizen Dialogue: Past Lessens, Future Hopes, Ohio: Kettering Foundation Press. The United States Institute of Peace (2022), About Leadership: Board of Directors, Available at: https://www.usip.org/about/leadership/board-directors, (Accessed on: 2/4/2022). Thelen, Kathleen (1999), "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics", Annual Reviews of Politic Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 369–404, (doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369) Tsvetkova, Natalia (2021), The Cold War in Universities : U. S. and Soviet Cultural Diplomacy, 1945-1990, Leiden-Boston: Brill. Tuch, Hans (1990), Communicating with the World: U.S. Public Diplomacy Overseas, New York: St. Martin's Press. Woolf, Amy, Paul Kerr, and Marybeth Nikitin (2021), Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements, Washington: Congressional Research Service, Available at: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RL33865.pdf, (Accessed on: 2/4/2022). Балаян А., Сунгуров Ю (2014), Фабрики Мысли: Международный и Российский Опыт. Санкт-Петербург: НИУ ВШЭ. Зайцев, Д (2008), "Влияние Институциональной Среды на Развитие Негосударственных Политических Акторов", Право и политика, No. 11, стр. 2757-2768, Режим доступа: https://nbpublish.com/ library_read_article.php?id=-7348, (Accessed on: 5/4/2022). Зубок, Владислав (2011), Неудавшаяся империя: Советский Союз в холодной войне от Сталина до Горбачева, Москва: РОССПЭН. Международный дискуссионный клуб «Валдай» (2022), О «Валдае»; Что такое «Валдай». Режим доступа: https://ru.valdaiclub.com/about/valdai/. (Accessed on: 5/4/2022) Мухаметов, Руслан (2018), «Место и Роль Неправительственных Организаций в Урегулировании Международных Конфликтов, Дискурс-Пи, стр. 65-72, (doi:10.17506/dipi.2018.30.1.6572) Попов, В. (2004), Современная дипломатия: теория и практика, Москва: Междкнародные Отношения. Путин, Владимир (2012), Двадцатилетие дня основания Совета по внешней и оборонной политике, Режим доступа: http://kremlin.ru/acts/bank/30576. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 281 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 165 |
||