رهیافت استدلال قیاسی در تحلیل سیاست خارجی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار علوم سیاسی دانشکدة حقوق و الهیات دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان

10.22059/jpq.2020.270908.1007349

چکیده

هدف مقالة حاضر، شناساندن رهیافت استدلال قیاسی به‌عنوان یک رهیافتشناختی در تحلیل سیاست خارجی است. به‌منظور دستیابی به این هدف، تلاش شده است با بهره‌گیری از ادبیات نظری و تجربی موجود، مباحثی در سه زمینة موضوعی شامل تعریف قیاس و استدلال قیاسی، چگونگی به‌کارگیری استدلال قیاسی در فرایند تصمیم‌گیری سیاست خارجی و ارزش تبیینی رهیافت استدلال قیاسی در تحلیل سیاست خارجی، استخراج و به‌نحوی نظام‌مند بیان شود. به باور نویسنده، این مباحث در کنار هم اجزای سازندة اصلی رهیافت استدلال قیاسی را شکل می‌دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


الف) فارسی
1. ساسانی، فرهاد (1383). استعاره: مبنای تفکر و ابزار زیبایی‌آفرینی، تهران: سورة مهر.
 
ب) خارجی
2. Bartkowski, M (2002). “The Impact of Analogies on the Foreign Policies of the United States and Great Britain: The Case of Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina’’,
3. RUBIKON E – Journal. ISSN 1505 -1161. Sep 2002. Avaiable at: -http: //maciejbartkowsk.com.
4. Blanchett, I. & Dunbar, K (2001). “How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity”, Memory & Cognition, 29 Vol.29, No. 5, pp.730 – 735.
5. Dyson, S. B. and Preston, T (2006). “Individual Characteristics of Political Leaders and the Use of Analogy in Foreign Policy Decision Making”, Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.265 – 288.
6. Eban, A (1977). An Autobiography. New York: Random House.
7. Forbus, K. D, Gentner, D, and Law, K (1994). “MACIFAC: A model of similarity – based Retrieval”, Cognitive Science,Vol.19, No.2, pp.141 – 205.
8. Gordon, W (1961). Synectics. New York: Harper and Row.
9. Hall, R. P (1989). “Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: A Comparative Analysis”, Artificial Inteligence,Vol. 39, pp.39 – 120.
10. Hehir, A (2006). “The impact of analogical reasoning on U. S. foreign policy towards Kosovo’’, Journal of Peace Research,Vol. 43, No. 1, (67), pp.67 – 81.
11. Hemmer, C (2006). Which Lessons matters?: American foreign policy decision making in the Middle East, 1979 – 1987. NEW York , NY: State University of New York Press.
12. Holyoak , K. J (2005). " Analogy’’, In: the Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning , Keith J. Holyoak and Robert G – Morrison, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.117 – 118.
13. Houghton , D. P (1996). “The role of analogical  reasoning in novel foreign policy situations’’, British Journal of political Science ,Vol. 26, No.4, pp.523 – 552.
14. Hunter, J. T (2011). Analogical Reasoning and U. S. Drug Policy: A Case Study of The MERIDA Initiative, Master of Art Thesis. San Diego State University.
15. Jervis, R (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princetin University Press.
16. Khong, Y. F (1992). Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1956. Princeton University Press.
17. Laub, Z. J (2012). Examining the Development – Security Nexus: Historical Analogies and Nation Building in U. S. Foreign Policy, An honor thesis for the program in International Relations, Tufts University.
18. Levy J. S (1994). “Learning and Foreign Policy: Sweeping A Conceptual Minefield’’, International Organization Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.272-312.
19. Macmillan, M (2009). Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History, New York: The Modern Library.
20. May, E. R (1973). “Lessons of the Past”: the Use and Misuse OF History in American Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press.
21. Mintz, A. & DeRouen, K.Jr (2010). Understanding foreign policy decision making, New York, NY: Cambridge University press.
22. Paris, R. (2002). “Kosovo and Metaphor War”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol.117, No.3, pp.423 – 450.
23. Record, J (2007). “The Use and Abuse of History: Munich, Vietnam, and Iraq’’, Survival, Vol. 49, No.1, pp.163-180.
24. Schwenk, C. R (1988). “The Cognitive Perspectvie On Strategic Decision Making’’, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 25, No.1, pp.41-55.
25. Shimko, K. L (1994)." Metaphores and foreign policy decision making", political psychology,Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.655 – 671.
26. Shimko, K. L (1995). Foreign Policy Metaphors: Falling Dominoes and Drug Wars, In Laura, N, Jeanne, A. K. Hey and Patrick J. Haney. Foreign Policy Analysis: Continuity and Change in Its Second Generation, Princeton Hall (NewJersey).
27. Simon, H. A (1957). Models of Man, New York: Wiley.
28. ---------------- (1976). Administrative Behavior , (4th ed.) New York: Free Press.
29. Taylor, S (1982). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In Harvard, J
30. Taylor, S. and Crocker, J (1983). Schematic bases of social information, processing, In Higgens, E., Herman, C. and zauna, J. Social Cognition The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Vertzberger, Y (1986). “Foreign policy Decisionmakers as Practical – Intuitive Historians: Applied History and Its Shortcomings”, International Studies Quarterly,Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.223 – 247.
32. Yeliv, S. A (2004). Explaining foreign policy: U. S. decision – making and the Persian Gulf War. Baltimore, M D: The Johns Unive press. (Ed) Cognition, Social Behavior and the Enviyonment. Hillsdale.
33. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.