بررسی تحول در ساختار نظام بین الملل: بر اساس ساختار تعدیل یافته از مدل والتز

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستخرج از رساله

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد شاهرود، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شاهرود، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه روابط بین الملل، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد شاهرود، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شاهرود، ایران.

3 استادیار گروه روابط بین الملل، ,دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد شاهرود، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ، شاهرود، ایران.

چکیده

بررسی امکان تغییر در ساختارهای نظام بین الملل با ایجاد تعدیل در ساختار مدل والتز، محور اصلی این پژوهش‌ می‌باشد. سوال اصلی این است که چگونه امکان برونرفت از محدودیت مدل والتز برای تبیین تغییر ساختاری در نظام بین‌الملل وجود دارد. برای پاسخ به این سوال، مفاهیم و متغیرهای تاثیر‌گذار بر بروندادهای بین‌المللی از نظر والتز و منتقدان او، شناسایی و در ایجاد طرح پیشنهادی این پژوهش ضمن وفاداری به مدل والتز برای فهم بهتر تحول ساختارها در نظام بین‌الملل، به کار گرفته می‌شوند. نتایج ما ایستایی مدل والتز نسبت به تغییر در ساختارهای نظام بین الملل را به ویژه در اصول نظم‌دهنده، و ویژگی کارکردی نشان می‌دهد. همچنین نتایج نشان می‌دهد مدل والتز به دلیل فقدان ساختار پویش‌ها، نیاز به تعدیل در این بخش نیز دارد. برقراری دو حد حداقلی و حداکثری برای وضعیت آنارکی و سلسله مراتبی در اصل اول ساختار سیاسی نظام و واحدها، تغییر جهت از اصل تفاوت و تشابه به اصل تمایز و تفکیک در اصل دوم ساختار سیاسی نظام و واحد ها و افزودن ساختار سوم با عنوان ساختار پویش‌ها به مجموع ساختارهای نظام بین‌الملل به عنوان راهکار این پژوهش برای تبیین تغییر ساختاری و ظهور نظام های بدیل، ارائه می‌گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining Change in the Structure of the International System: Based on a Modified Structure from the Waltz Model

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Zandi Ziarani 1
  • Amirhooshang Mirkooshesh 2
  • Ehsan Razani 3
1 PhD student of Assistant Prof. at International Relations Department , Faculty of Humanities, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
2 Assistant Prof. at International Relations Department , Faculty of Humanities, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
3 Assistant Prof. at International Relations Department , Faculty of Humanities, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Investigating the possibility of change in the structures of the international system by modifications in the Waltz model of the structure is the main goal of this research. The main question is how to make Waltz's model capable of explaining the structural change in the system. In order to answer this question, the concepts and variables affecting the international outcomes are identified by evaluation and doing a review of Waltz theory and the critics and commentators to offer the proposed plan of this research while being loyal to the Waltz model for a better understanding of the change of structures in the international system. Our results show the stillness of Waltz's model to changes in the structures of the international system, especially in the ordering principles and functional specification. Also, the results show that the Waltz model needs modification due to the lack of the structure of the process. We define a tolerance within two extremes for ordering principle in the first element of the political structure of the system and units, then we change the direction from the principle of difference and similarity to the principle of differentiation and separation in the second element of the political structure of the system and units and finally, we add a third structure called the structure of the process. The triple structure of the international system is presented as the solution of this research to explain the structural change and the emergence of alternative systems.

مراجع

  1. Ashley, R. (1986). The Poverty of Neorealism. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics. Columbia UP.
  2. Ashley, R. (1995). The Powers of Anarchy: Theory, Sovereignty, and the Domestication of Global Life (1988). International theory: critical investigations, 94-128.
  3. Ashley, R. (1996). 11 The achievements of post-structuralism. International theory: Positivism and beyond, 240.
  4. Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225-286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026709
  5. Ashley, R. K. (1988). Untying the sovereign state: a double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium, 17(2), 227-262.
  6. Buzan, B. (1993a). 4. Beyond Neorealism: Interaction Capacity. In The Logic of Anarchy (pp. 66-80). Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.7312/buza93756-005
  7. Buzan, B. (1993b). From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization, 47(3), 327-352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027983
  8. Buzan, B., & Albert, M. (2010). Differentiation: A sociological approach to international relations theory. European Journal of International Relations, 16(3), 315-337.
  9. Buzan, B., Jones, C. A., Little, R., & Richard, L. (1993). The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. Columbia University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=qLVWxnZwsCYC
  10. Cox, M. (2012). 26914 After the West? Toward a New International System? In G. Lundestad (Ed.), International Relations Since the End of the Cold War: New and Old Dimensions (pp. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199666430.003.0015
  11. Cox, M., Dunne, T., & Booth, K. (2001). Empires, systems and states: great transformations in international politics. Review of International Studies, 27(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210501008002
  12. Cox, R. (1986). States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics (pp. 158-204). Columbia UP.
  13. Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501
  14. Cox, R. W. (2007). 'The International' in Evolution. Millennium, 35(3), 513-527. https://org/10.1177/03058298070350030901
  15. Donnelly, J. (2012). The differentiation of international societies: An approach to structural international theory. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 151-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066111411208
  16. Durkheim, É., & Simpson, G. (2013). The Division of Labor in Society. Digireads.com Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?id=yjNRngEACAAJ
  17. Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=2iKL7zr3kl0C
  18. Gilpin, R. G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization, 38(2), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300026710
  19. Green, D., & Green, D. (2016). 135How the International System Shapes Change. In How Change Happens (pp. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198785392.003.0009
  20. Griffiths, R. D. (2018). The Waltzian ordering principle and international change: A two-dimensional model. European Journal of International Relations, 24(1), 130-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117700478
  21. Havercroft, J., & Prichard, A. (2017). Anarchy and International Relations theory: A reconsideration. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 252-265.
  22. Herrera, G. L. (2012) Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change. State University of New York Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=rVtquMX_hCUC
  23. Holsti, K. (2016). Governance Without Government: Polyarchy in Nineteenth-Century European International Politics. In Kalevi Holsti: Major Texts on War, the State, Peace, and International Order (pp. 149-171). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28818-5_11
  24. Holsti, k. J. (1998). The Problem of Change in International Relations Theory. Institute of International Relations, 26.
  25. Holsti, K. J., & Holsti, K. J. (2004). Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge University Press. https://google.com/books?id=Jh6gjr-2ho8C
  26. Holsti, O. R. (2007). International Systems, System Change, and Foreign Policy: Commentary on “Changing International Systems”. Diplomatic History, 15(1), 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1991.tb00120.x
  27. Keohane, R. (2011). Neoliberal institutionalism. In Security Studies (pp. 157-164). Routledge.
  28. Keohane, R. O. (1986). Neorealism and its Critics. Columbia University Press.
  29. Keohane, R. O. (Ed.). (1986a). Neorealism and Its Critics columbia university press.
  30. Keohane, R. O. (1986b). Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics (pp. 158-204). Columbia UP.
  31. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2001). Power and Interdependence. Longman. https://books.google.com/books?id=VG8kAQAAIAAJ
  32. Lechner, S. (2017). Why anarchy still matters for International Relations: On theories and things. Journal of International Political Theory, 13(3), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217713764
  33. Moolakkattu, J. (2009). Robert W. Cox and Critical Theory of International Relations. International Studies, 46, 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600404
  34. Moolakkattu, J. S. (2011). Robert W. Cox and Critical Theory of International Relations. International Studies, 46(4), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600404
  35. Parker, M. W. (2016). The Limits of Structural Realism: Evaluating the Sovereignty-Supremacy Debate. International Studies Review, 18(4), 559-579.
  36. Quinn, R., & Gibson, B. (2017). An Analysis of Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics. Macat Library. https://books.google.com/books?id=-EkrDwAAQBAJ
  37. Ruggie, J. (1986). Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neo-Realist Synthesis. In K. Robert O (Ed.), Neo-Realism and its Critics (pp. 134-148). Columbia UP.
  38. Ruggie, J. G. (1983). Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. World politics, 35(2), 261-285. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010273
  39. Ruggie, J. G. (1993). Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization, 47(1), 139-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300004732
  40. Waltz, N. (2010). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.
  41. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764
  42. Wendt, (1999). Social theory of international politics (Vol. 67). Cambridge University Press.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار