диссертация (1169605), страница 5
Текст из файла (страница 5)
ISSN: 0130-9625. (1,5 п.л.). /http://en.interaffairs.ru/events/655-ir-theory-and-the-new-middle-east.htmlThe article analyzes the US policy in the Middle East, shows how the USactions differ before and after the terrorist attacks of 2001. Describes how thetheories of neorealism, neoliberalism and constructivism influenced the formationof the US strategy, in particular, the development of the concept of “regimechange” and "color" revolutions. It is concluded that Syria has become one of theobjects of the use of American concepts and plans for the reconstruction of theMiddle East, which the author defines as a “failed neorealist-constructivistproject”.2.Хаддад Х.
Энергетическая дипломатия России на БлижнемВостоке // Социальные коммуникации. № 2, 2018, С. 97-107. ISSN: 22216073. (1 п.л.).The article notes that Russia's actions in the energy sector in the MiddleEast are important driving forces for its regional strategy. Russian energydiplomacy in the region does not attract much attention, since it is not of a conflictnature, as is the case with the EU countries, where the West is trying to politicizerelations and position Russia as a threat.
In the Middle East, Russia does notsupply, but exploits natural resources, so there is no “dependency” relationship thatexists with European countries. It is noted that this vector of the grand strategy ofthe Russian Federation is decisive for establishing the country as a great power andits formation as a real competitor of the United States in regional and worldpolitics.183.Хаддад Х. Каким образом национализм, супранационализм иглобализм участвуют в создании новой системы международных отношений// Социальные коммуникации.
№ 2. 2018. С. 85-96. ISSN: 2221-6073. (1 п.л.).In the article, the author is trying to understand how such important eventsin world politics, as the UK exit from the European Union and D. Trump’s victoryin the 2016 elections in the USA, as well as the rise of Russia and China, influencethe formation of the world order. It is noted that not enough attention is paid tohow new trends in international relations are influenced by civilizational changeswithin the framework of the Western world. The key to understanding theseprocesses can be a consideration of how nationalism, supranationalism andglobalism affect world processes, and the rejection of the scheme according towhich the development of international relations goes from tribalism to globalism.4.Korybko A., Haddad H.
Chaos Theory, Global Systemic Change, AndHybrid Wars // Сравнительная политика (Comparative Politics). 2016. 7 (25)).Pp. 25-35 / ISSN: 2221-3279. (0,5 п.л.) https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-20167-4(25)-25-35. https://www.comparativepolitics.org/jour/article/view/696In the article, the authors note that in the world there is a clash between twoprojects of the organization of the world system: unipolar and multipolar. Toexplain what is happening, the authors turn to chaos theory and try to apply it tocontemporary international relations, and also use a systematic approach inanalyzing global changes that are taking place.
The article discusses the theory of"hybrid wars", which, according to the authors, is aimed at promoting a new coldwar.19CHAPTER IEVOLUTION OF THE US FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY AFTERSEPTEMBER 11, 20011.1. Theoretical Foundations of the American National Security Strategy andUS Mideast policyThe American contemporary strategy is based on the ideas of the two maintheoretical schools: neorealism and neoliberalism. Both theories played animpactful role in influencing the conduct of American foreign policy towards theMideast, and especially Syria, which is why it’s necessary to explain them indepth.
Constructivism, as first elucidated by Alexander Wendt in his 1999 bookabout the “Social Theory of International Politics” 24, is also an importantcomponent constituting Washington’s strategic tool set, but it doesn’t have asmuch of an effect on the US as the other two ideas.Professor MGIMO T. Alekseeva accentuating the importance of values andidentity, wrote that “postmodernism helped international relations specialists todistinguish the cultural factor in international processes, but they couldn’t make ita really substantial alternative to other theoretical schools, or to suggest anyconstructive theoretical compromise with them” 25.These factors explain the Mideast Muslims’ predisposition to sectarianism,which would end up being exploited by the US during and after the “Arab Spring”events, yet they don’t account for why the US sought to take advantage of this inthe first place nor what ends it sought to achieve by doing so, ergo the need forexploring the fundamentals of the neorealist and neoliberal theories.Neorealism ideas had played an outsized role in influencing the formationof US policy towards the Mideast.
The godfather of this method of analysis isKenneth Waltz, a famous US political scientist who published the groundbreaking24Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1999, p. 447.Алексеева Т.А. Химеры страны Оз: культурный поворот в теории международных отношений //Международные процессы. Том 10. № 3-4. 2012. C. 17.2520book “Theory of International Politics”26 in 1979. This book is universallyregarded as one of the most important pieces of literature ever released in the fieldof international relations, and it resulted in K. Waltz being recognized as thefounder of this theory.
Neorealists adopt a structural approach to internationalrelations, in that they first examine how the international system functions and thenproceed to analyze everything else from there. K.Waltz wrote that the world isdefined by the state of anarchy, meaning that there is no ultimate deciding forcethat’s keeping everything together and enforcing rules. He says that this is a selfhelp system and that states can only depend on themselves to defend their interests.Therefore, he concludes, anarchy is the ordering principle of the internationalsystem, which thus makes it the defining feature of international relations.Proceeding from this fundamental understanding, K.Waltz infers that whileanarchy indeed impacts on every form of international behavior, that there are stillcertain patterns and sets of constraining conditions that lead to the formation ofsome vague semblance of order.
One of the most relevant of these is the concept ofhierarchy. David A. Lake wrote in his book “Hierarchy In International Relations”that this means that powerful states take advantage of weaker ones, and that thishas been happening for millennia already, whether it was carried out throughempires, tributary systems, hegemonic orders, spheres of influence, or any othersort of construction27. In the modern day system of international relations, D. Lakesays that this makes some states subordinate to the United States while others resistits power. Ultimately, he summarizes that hierarchy is a voluntary system ofcontacts between states, but one which is still fully influenced by the systemicconstant of international anarchy. To refer back to Waltz and his pioneering“Theory of International Politics” treatise, hierarchy is affected by the distrust thatstates feel towards one another - a condition emblematic of international anarchy –and that larger states balance while others bandwagon.2627Waltz K.
N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1979, p. 256.Lake D. A. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2011, pp. 45-93, 175-191.21Balancing, Waltz believes, occurs when states modify their domestic andinternational policies in order to compete with one another, while bandwagoning istypically exemplified by smaller states teaming up with larger ones in order toensure their security. The inadvertently spiraling distrust that balancing andbandwagoning produces in states leads to what is termed as the security dilemma,which can be concisely described as the unintentional escalation of distrust andcompetition that occurs between states when one takes actions that it believes to bedefensive but which are perceived by their international peers as offensive, thuscatalyzing a cycle of more balancing and bandwagoning.
The reason why statesbehave this way is because they crave power and see this as irreplaceable inguaranteeing their survival, which is what all states’ most basic interest is. Everystate, Waltz writes, behaves in a rational way, and that while there are veritablyother actors that partake in influencing international affairs, that states are the onlyones that really matter because they’re the most powerful. He then logicallypostulates that if all state are rational, then they will always pursue what theybelieve to be their national interests, which is a subjectively defined term thatvaries from state to state.
The contradiction between national interests results inrivalry, which in turn inspires states to make moves against the other in correctingthe perceived imbalance between them.The complicated maneuvering between states when they engage in balancingand bandwagoning could interestingly result in a sort of normalcy and stability inthe international system, which is regarded by scholars as being the Balance ofPower Theory. Russian specialist Alexei Zobnin writes that strong states will bothinternally and externally balance against their perceived rivals in order tomaximize their power in the anarchic international system and preempt anypossible threats against them28. Although this is theorized as bringing balance tothe global order, A.Zobnin disagrees, citing various contradictions which he arguesdisprove this assertion.
Despite that, the Balance of Power principle is popularlyЗобнин А. К определению принципа баланса сил. Опыт неоинституционального подхода к международнойсреде. // Международные процессы, т. 12, № 3 (38), июль-сентябрь 2014. С. 55-69.2822regarded as one of the main anchors of neorealist theory and is generally veryaccurate in making sense of the actions that Great Powers engage in most of thetime. Professor John Mearsheimer, a well-known specialist in IR studies, writesthat states engage in either offensive or defensive realism29.
He describes the firstas essentially being ‘power for the sake of it’ and the only perceived means withwhich the state believes that it can guarantee its own security, which aptly sums upwhy aspiring hegemons behave the way that they do. As for the second form ofrealism, this accounts for the bandwagoning which was just described.In speaking about the back-and-forth dynamics between different groups andcategories of states, when there are multiple centers of power, the internationalsystem can be said to be multipolar and unpredictable, but when there are two likeduring the Cold War, for example, then it becomes bipolar and stable. This is yetanother theoretical supposition related to neorealism.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
