استراتژی کلان فضایی در پرتو نظریه روابط بین‌الملل

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستخرج از رساله

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه روابط بین‌الملل، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه روابط بین‌الملل، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران.

چکیده

در قرن بیست و یکم سیاست بین الملل به دنبال تغییر در ساختار، کنشگران و رویه‌ها دستخوش تحول قرار گرفته است. سیر چنین تغییراتی ضمن به نمایش گذاشتن درهم آمیختگی سیاست بین الملل و فضای ماورای جو، قابلیت نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل را در شرایطی به چالش دعوت می‌کند که تأثیر تحولات سیاست بین‌الملل بر پیکره جملگی آن ها نقش بسته است. این مقاله متکی به رویکردی کیفی و روش تحقیق نظری-کاربردی در پی پاسخ به این پرسش است که نظریه های روابط بین الملل در برخورد با سیاست بین الملل متحول شده متأثر از فناوری‌های فضایی چه وضعیتی دارند؟ یافته‌های پژوهش پس از پرداختن به استراتژی کلان فضایی و رویکرد نظریه‌های دسته‌بندی شده در قالب الف) کلاسیک: نوواقع گرایی و نولیبرالیسم، ب)تلفیقی: سازه‌انگاری و پست مدرنیسم و ج) نوین: پست مدرنیسم و محیط زیست‌گرایی بیان گر دیدگاه های متفاوت و گاه متضاد یک دیگر است. بررسی نظریه‌های منتخب در برخورد با سیاست بین‌الملل متحول شده ناشی از حضور و فعالیت در فضای ماورای جو بیانگر لزوم تقویت، اصلاح و تعدیل و یا حتی ناکامی آن هاست و تأکیدی است بر ارائه الگوی نظری نوینی که طیفی از بازیگران را در مرکز توجه خود قرار دهد، ساختارهای مادی و غیرمادی را در کنار هم دربرگیرد و فرایندهای ناشی از مجازی شدن واقعیت را مورد توجه قرار دهد که تحولات سیاست بین‌الملل در قرن بیست و یکم و متأثر از فضای ماورای جو را شکل می‌دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Macro-space Strategy in the Light of International Relations Theory

نویسندگان [English]

  • Gelare Rastegarnia 1
  • Afshin Zargar 2
  • Fakhreddin Soltany 2
1 PhD Student, Department of International Relations, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
چکیده [English]

In the 21st century, international politics has evolved following changes in the structure, actors and procedures. such changes reflect the compound of international politics and new phenomena such as outer space. Furthermore, it challenges theories of international relations ability to explain, describe and predict in a situation where the impact of international politics changes has played a role in the bodies of all of them, and each of them has experienced the emergence, decline or evolution during the first space activities in the early space age and the innovative changes in space technologies and the continuation of activities in the new space age. This article relies on a qualitative approach and theoretical-applied method, seeks to answer this question, what is the status of theories of international relations in dealing with evolving international politics influenced by space technologies? The study of selected theories in dealing with the evolving international politics resulting from their presence and activity in outer space indicates the need to strengthen, modify, or even their failure and an emphasis on the presentation of a new theoretical model that focuses on a range of actors, including material and immaterial structures and consider the processes of virtualization of reality that shape international political developments in the 21st century.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Outer‌ Space
  • International Politics
  • Astropolitic
  • Classic Theories
  • Integrated Theories
  • New Theories

مراجع

  1. Allan, B. (2018). From subjects to objects: Knowledge in International Relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 24(4), 841-864.
  2. Al-Rodhan, N. (2012). Meta Geopolitics of Outer Space: an Analysis of Space Power. Security and Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Basrur, R. (2006). Decentralizing Theory: Regional International Politics. International Studies, 43(4), 419-424.
  4. Britingham, B. (2010). Does the World Really Need New Space Law?. Oregon Review of International Law ,12 (31), 31-54.
  5. Bull, H. (1966). Society and Anarchy in International Relations.In H. Butterfield, M. Wight, Diplomatic Investigation: Essay in the Theory of International Politics, London: George Alleen & Unwin.
  6. Bull, H. (1972). The Theory of International Politics: 1919-1969. In B. Porter., The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics. London: Oxford University Press.
  7. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society, London: Macmillan.
  8. Buzan, B., Weaver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in International Relations.
  9. Cox, M. (2016). Introduction to international relations, London: University of London.
  10. Cox, R. W. (1999). Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order. Review of International Studies, 25(1), 3-28.
  11. Cox, R. W .(1989). Production. the State and Change in World Order, In E.-O. Czempiel. J. Rosenau (eds.), Global Change and Theoretical Challenges. Cambridge.
  12. Creedon, M. R. (2012). Space and Cyber: Shared Challengs, Shared Opportunities. Strategic Studies Quarterly. 6(1), 3-8.
  13. Chernoff, F.(2014). Theory & Metetheory in International Relation; Concepts & Contending Accounts. Translated by Alireza Tayeb, Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
  14. Der Derin, J. (2000). Virtuous war/virtual theory, Foreign Affairs, 76 , 771-788
  15. Devetak, R. (2005). Postmodernism, in: Burchill and Linklater. et al. Theories of International Relations. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.
  16. Devanshi, S. (2017). The Counundrums of Emerging Virtuous War, IndraStra Global, 3 (3), 1-4.
  17. Dolman, E.C. (2005). Astropolitik: Clasical Geopolitics in the Space Age, London: Frank Cass Publishers.
  18. Eschle, C. and Maiguaschca, B. (eds.) (2005). Critical Theories, World Politics and the Anti-Globalization Movement, London: Routledge.
  19. Ghanbar. S.. (2019). The Concept of International Society and attempt to Link International Law and International Relations, International Studies Journal, 16(1), 7-30. (In Persian)
  20. Harrison, T., et al. (2017). Escalation and Deterrence in the Second Space Age, CSIS, October 2017 at: https//: www.csis.org
  21. Huebert, J. H. Block. W. (2007). Space Environmentalism, Property Rights and the Law, The University of Memphis Law Review, 37, 281- 309.
  22. James, L. Hyatt, III et al. (2010). Space power2010. A Research Paper Presented To The Directorate of Research Air Command and Staff College. ACSC/DEC/010E/95-05, at: https//:www.airuniversity.af.edu
  23. Jahn, B. (2017). Theorizing the political relevance of international relations theory, International Studies Quarterly, 61 (1), 64-77.
  24. Johnson, D. (2010). Sorting out the Question of Feminist Technology, In L. Layne, S. Vostral (eds.). Feminist Technology, University of Illinois Press.
  25. Keohane, R (1989). International Institution and State Power, In C. Boulder, Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder: WestviewPress
  26. Klinkenberg, H. (2016). Constructing The Chinese Threat in Outer Space; A critical-constructivist review of U.S. Foreign Policy with Regard to China’s Counter Space Progra, University of Leiden the Netherland.
  27. Launius, R. D. (2011). History of Civil Space Activity and Space Power, In D. Charles, P. Lutes (eds.), Toward a Theory of Space power: Selected Essay, Washington DC: National Defense University Press.
  28. Livingstone, D., Lewis, P. (2016). Space, the Final Frontier for Cybersecurity?, International Security Department, Chatham House.
  29. Maclean, J. (1981). Marxist Epistemology. Explanations of “Change” and the Study of International Relations, In B. Buzan, R. B. Jones (eds.), Change in the Study of International Relations, London: The Evaded Dimension.
  30. Mahootchian, S. Tayebi. S. (2019). Explaining the Dimensions of Environmental Protection in the Light of International Development and Convergence, International Studies Journal, 16(3), 93-112. (In Persian)
  31. Maiguaschca, B. (2003). Introduction: Governance and Resistance in World Politics, Review of International Studies, 29, 3-28.
  32. Mansell, W., Morrison, A. P., Reid, G., Lowens, I., Tai, S. (2007).  The interpretation of, and responses to, changes in internal states: an integrative cognitive model of mood swings and bipolar disorders, Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 35(5). 515–539.
  33. Pfaltzgraff, R. (2018). International Relations Theory and Space power, In A. Zargar, Outer Space by Perspective of International Law & Politics. Translated by G. Rastegarnia. Tehran: Farhang Shenasi. (In Persian)
  34. Rastegarnia, G.(2021). The Role Of The Outer Space in The 21st Century International Politics; Evolution of International Relations Basic Concepts & Provide a Theoretical Framework. PhD Thesis, Karaj: Islamic Azad University of Karaj. (In Persian)
  35. Schieder, S. Spindler. M. (2014). Theories of International Relations. translated by A. Skinner. Routledge
  36. Sheehan, M. (2007). The International Politics of Space, New York: Routledge.
  37. Stuart, J. (2014). Exploring the Relationship Between Outer Space and World Politics: English School and Regime Theory Perspectives, The Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
  38. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House
  39. Weeler, W. A. (2014). Changing Paradigms and Challenges Tools For Space Systems Cyber Situational Awareness, The Aerospace Corporation, at: https:/aerospace.org.
  40. Wendt, A. (1987). The Agent and Structure Problem in International Relations Theory, International Organization, 41(3), 335-370.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار