scholarly journals EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT STUDIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CONTEXT IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA

2016 ◽  
pp. 48-62
Author(s):  
A. I. Nikitin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
World Order ◽  
Science Research ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Conflict Studies ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Economic Formation

Article analyses formation and development of the conflict studies in Russia as a sub-discipline within political sciences, on the edge between political theory and studies of international relations and international security. Article defines stages of formation of conflict studies in Russia, analyzes social request for studies of conflicts, considers influence of foreign and international institutes and research, both form the CIS and from other foreign countries, onto the conflict studies in Russia. Author postulates turning of the "New Political Thinking"paradigm elaborated by Gorbachev that allowed reconsidering Moscow's attitude towards various conflicts and rethinking of theoretical principles of conflict analysis, that are not anymore limited to class struggle and ideological contradictions. Introduction of more pluralistic concepts of "socio-political model" and "world order" instead of Marxist category of "socio-economic formation" led to remodeling of international relations along new lines, as well as study contradictions within one social system. Splash of inter-ethnic and separatist conflicts in the first half of the 1990s led to shaping of "practically oriented conflict studies" reflecting political interests of conflict sides in conflicts in Karabakh, Georgia/Abkhazia, Georgia/South Ossetia, Moldova/Transnistria. On the eve of 1990s-2000s formation of theoretical systemic conflict studies as a discipline took place, and this discipline was already quite strongly interfaced with international and foreign conflict studies theory. Article considers role of various institutes of the Russian Academy of Science, research centers including Russian Council on International Affairs, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy? Russian Pugwash Committee, Center for Political and International studies, Moscow Carnegie Center, Russian institute for Strategic Studies, Institute for the USA and Canada Studies, etc. As a separate direction of studies article tackles studies of post-soviet conflicts by foreign institutes and centers, like UNIDIR (Geneva), SIPRI (Stockholm), EU ISS (Paris), British Royal institute of International Affairs. Interaction of Russian and Swiss scientists on the basis of Geneva-based GCSP and DCAF attracts special attention. In conclusion typical issues in focus, as well as theme fields of the Russian conflict studies as a sub-discipline within political sciences are formulated.

scholarly journals The Evolution of Peacekeeping Operations : Interview with Professor Alexander I. Nikitin

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-746
Author(s):  
Alexander I. Nikitin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
International Security ◽  
International Studies ◽  
State University ◽  
State Institute ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Political Sciences ◽  
Moscow State University

Professor Dr. Alexander I. Nikitin is a leading Russian IR scholar, an expert on problems of international security, international conflicts, peacekeeping operations, activities of international organizations. Professor of the Political Sciences Department at MGIMO University, Director of the MGIMO Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Institute for International Studies, Director of the Center for Political and International Studies, Professor of the State Management Department of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor of the Public Policy Department of the Research University - Higher School of Economics, President Emeritus of the Russian Political Science Association (RPSA) and Chairman of the RPSA International Cooperation Council. Subject area: International Security, Peacekeeping, Conflict Resolution, International Relations, NATO Policy and Russia - NATO Relations, International Organizations (UN, OSCE, NATO, CSTO, SCO), Nuclear Policy and Non-Proliferation, Regulation of Private Military and Security Companies, Civil-Military Relations. Born in 1958, graduated from the Department of Philosophy of Moscow State University in 1979. PhD (International Relations) in 1983 and 2000. Research work for 10 years (1979-1989) in the USA and Canada Studies Institute (Senior Research Fellow, Head of Section). From 1989 to the present day Dr. Nikitin has been teaching in the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (from 1996 to the present day - Professor of the Department of Political Sciences). From 2004 to the present day - Director of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Institute for International Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Center specializes in research in the spheres of international security and international relations. In his interview Professor Dr. Alexander I. Nikitin describes the current state of international peacekeeping, current trends and characteristics of conflicts and their impact on international relations. Professor Nikitin assesses Russias participation in peacekeeping operations within the UN and other formats of international cooperation.

scholarly journals Eurasian Geopolitics Importance to World Politics and China’s Geostrategy

2019 ◽  
pp. 11-24
Author(s):  
Vakhtang Maisaia ◽  
Koba Kobaladze
Keyword(s):  
International Security ◽  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Security Treaty ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Power Game ◽  
Political Spectrum ◽  
High Level ◽  
Expert Community

Since 1990 after bipolar system demolition and setting up new world order with liberal international order with American leadership endorsement lasted till 2014, the Eurasian space became one of the hottest spots in the world. Considering situational changes in the international security system with diminishing the global hegemony of the USA in case of confrontation with Russia and China, Eurasia has been increasing its geopolitical relevance to international politics. Several implications on endorsing new “Eurasian” alliances (Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Collective Security Treaty Organization, Eurasian Union, etc.) with primarily involvement of the countries of Post-Soviet space and China, directed against to NATO policy of enlargement could have created a rim of instability with “flexing mussels” between three nuclear powers – the USA, Russian Federation and People's Republic of China (PRC). Tripolarity agenda confirmed by the international security high-level expert community, incoming world order is shaping up in the classical balance of power game of international relations. Hence, the China-Russia alliance and strategic cooperation wrenched in the area really play an important role in fostering process at any level of the political spectrum: local, regional and certainly global.

There is no such thing as society: beyond individualism and statism in international security studies

1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shaw
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Sociological Perspective ◽  
Actor Model ◽  
Conceptual Issue

This article offers a sociological perspective on a major conceptual issue in international relations, the question of ‘security’, and it raises major issues to do with the role of sociological concepts in international studies. For some years now, the work of sociological writers such as Skocpol, Giddens and Mann1 has attracted some interest in international studies. International theorists such as Linklater and Halliday have seen their work as offering a theoretical advance both on realism and on Marxist alternatives. At the same time, these developments have involved the paradox that, as one critic puts it, ‘current sociological theories of the state are increasingly approaching a more traditional view of the state—the state as actor model—precisely at a time when the theory of international relations is getting away from this idea and taking a more sociological form.

scholarly journals BRICS in International Legal Space: Humanitarian Imperatives of International Security

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-34
Author(s):  
B. Asadov ◽  
V. Gavrilenko ◽  
S. Nemchenko
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Interaction Model ◽  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Large Country ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
International Peacekeeping

The article is devoted to the examination of the formation of new vectors for international relations development within the global format of cooperation. The establishment and unification of BRICS in the international legal sphere through a wide range of common interests and views of its members towards issues facing the modern world reflect objective tendencies of world development to the formation of amultipolar international relations system and determination of particular large country actors of broad integration and having many dimensions. The authors reveal particular characteristics of the international-legal status of BRICS, which make it possible to have an effective impact on challenges facing the modern world. The legal BRICS status differs crucially from traditional legal approaches to international organizations. Acting as a special subject of world politics, creating more trusted interaction conditions, BRICS focuses its attention on the alternative world order principles within the new model of global relations. Such a format of multilateral cooperation, as well as more trusted and additional mechanisms of international interaction, gives the members an opportunity to demonstrate their geopolitical and geoeconomic world significance, and in addition their demanded humanitarian role, which, as the analysis of the mentioned actor demonstrates, is aimed at forming its own interaction model. The logic of the BRICS agenda extension to the level of an important global management system element demonstrates the goal in the field of action and, accordingly, intensive progress of humanitarian imperatives. For these humanitarian imperatives, the issues of international peacekeeping, security, protection, encouraging human rights and providing stable development are an objective necessity, especially for active demonstration of the members’ viewpoints on the international scene. For understanding the process of the alignment of international security humanitarian imperatives it is necessary to study the existing objective needs in conjunction with each country, member of BRICS.

The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-489
Author(s):  
Roland Paris
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
State Action ◽  
Official Discourse ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractA principal theme of international relations scholarship following the Cold War was the apparent erosion of state sovereignty caused by globalization's integrative effects and the proliferation of international institutions and networks. In recent years, however, scholars have noted a reverse trend: the reassertion of traditional, or Westphalian, state sovereignty. By contrast, I highlight another recent trend that has gone largely overlooked: the reaffirmation of older “extralegal” and “organic” versions of sovereignty by three of the world's most powerful states—Russia, China, and the United States. After tracing the genealogy of these older concepts, I consider how and why they have gained prominence in the official discourse of all three countries. I also explore the implications of this shift, which not only illustrates the importance of “norm retrieval” in international affairs, but also raises questions about the foundations of international order. Contrary to Westphalian sovereignty, which emphasizes the legal equality of states and the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, the extralegal and organic versions offer few constraints on state action. If anything, they appear to license powerful states to dominate others.

Do You Feel Welcome? Gendered Experiences in International Security Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 216-226
Author(s):  
Maria Rost Rublee ◽  
Emily B Jackson ◽  
Eric Parajon ◽  
Susan Peterson ◽  
Constance Duncombe
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Security ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Gender Representation ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Diversity Initiatives ◽  
Negative Experiences ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
Old Boys Network

Abstract Unlike in the broader field of international relations, relatively little research on gender representation and gendered experiences exists within the subfield of security studies. This article begins to fill that gap by sharing the results of a 2019 survey of members of the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) of the International Studies Association (ISA). The survey results show striking gender differences in members’ experiences, with women more likely than men to describe ISSS as “insular,” “clubby,” and an “Old Boys’ Network”; more likely to report experiences of hostility and exclusion; and more likely to believe that diversity initiatives are needed. Our analysis reveals that women in the ISSS report (1) harassment, (2) negative experiences participating in various section activities, (3) more significant barriers to attending and being selected for the section's ISA program, and (4) a sense of feeling unwelcome at ISSS meetings, all at higher rates than male respondents.

Nordic Countries in Transatlantic Partnership: a Severe Challenge

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-35
Author(s):  
K. Voronov
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
Nordic Countries ◽  
Stable Complex ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
North West ◽  
New Strategy ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Power Center ◽  
Defense Cooperation

In the Euro-Atlantic relations system (USA, NATO, EU), small Nordic countries are forced, in a conformist way, to adapt themselves to unsteady parameters of global and regional conditions. Irrespective of the Ukrainian crisis duration, they will drift together with their EU partners to a greater autonomy from the USA, not interrupting tight links with their transatlantic supervisor. It seems that the geopolitical pressure on Russia, the creation of threat to its North-West by the growing military potential is not seen very clearly. A deep transformation of relations between the USA, Europe and Russia indirectly affected the Nordic Europe. The mobilization of elites and inhabitants on the basis of defensive discourse is taking place in the Northern subregion. NATO and EU are trying to react accordingly, but still do not justify the expectations of Nordic Europeans. The new strategy accomplishing to deter Moscow’s “revisionist behavior”, but at the same time, to secure Russia's involvement in international affairs for a long-term perspective is, from viewpoint of the Nordic community, one of the priority tasks of transatlantic partners for a more balanced, stable, complex world order. The transatlantic policy of Nordic countries is changeable in a very short range of variants. In this subregion, one may see the interaction/competition between two segments of the Euro-Atlantic security: NATO (art. 5 of the Washington Treaty) and EU (Lisbon Treaty – an additional option) as an independent “power center”. The activation, especially the institutionalization of the subregional Northern defense cooperation (the report made by T. Stoltenberg on February 9, 2009; NORDEFCO; the initiative of the Ministers of Defense on April 9, 2015) may become a new strategic macro factor under conditions of the complicated interaction/ competition between two segments (NATO and EU) for the Euro-Atlantic security in the future Europe.

scholarly journals The births of International Studies in China

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Yih-Jye Hwang
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
World Order ◽  
Scientific Discipline ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Political Studies ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Chinese School ◽  
Chinese Scholars

Abstract This article explores how International Studies as a scientific discipline emerged and developed in China, against the background of a Sinocentric world order that had predominated in East Asia for a long time. The argument of this article is threefold. First, the discipline relied heavily on historical, legal, and political studies, and placed a heavy focus on the investigation of China's integration into the Westphalian system. Second, studies of International Relations were grounded in a problem-solving approach to various issues China was facing at various times in the course of modernisation. Third, the historical development of International Studies in China has had a profound impact on the current IR scholarship in both the PRC and Taiwan, including the recent surge of attempts to establish a Chinese School of IR theory in China and the voluntary acceptance of Western IR in Taiwan. By way of conclusion, the article suggests that there is still an indigenous Chinese site of agency with regards to developing IR. This agency exists despite the fact that in the course of the disciplinary institutionalisation of IR Chinese scholars have largely absorbed Western knowledge.

scholarly journals LEADERSHIP AND HEGEMONY IN GEOSTRATEGY OF INFORMAL NEO-EMPIRES

2017 ◽  
pp. 39-49
Author(s):  
A. Goltsov
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
World Order ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
The Relationship

The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between leadership and hegemony in international relations, especially in the context of geostrategy of the informal neo-empires. Ideally, leadership of the certain actor means that other actors voluntarily accept its proposed values, norms and rules, recognize its authority to implement a policy for the realization of common goals. Hegemony is the dominance of a particular actor (hegemon) over other actors, establishing his controls over them, imposing its political, economic and cultural values. Hegemony in international relations is carried out usually covertly and often presented as a leadership. Leadership and hegemony are possible at various levels of the geopolitical organization in the world. We treat leadership and hegemony as mechanisms of implementation of a geostrategy of powerful actors of international relations, particularly of informal neo-empires. Each of the contemporary informal neo-empires develops and implements geostrategy, aimed at ensuring its hegemony, usually covert, within a certain geospace and realizes it as a means of a both “hard” and “soft” power. The USA, which is the main “center” of the Western macro-empire, trys to maintain its world leadership, and at the same time secure a covert hegemony over the strategically important regions of the world. The EU is a neo-imperial alliance and has geostrategy of “soft” hegemony. Russia opposes the hegemony of the West and advocates the formation of a multipolar world order with the “balance of power”. The RF carries in the international arena neo-imperial geostrategy in the international arena directed to increase its role in the world and ensure its hegemony in the post-Soviet space.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document