رهیافت استدلال قیاسی در تحلیل سیاست خارجی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار علوم سیاسی دانشکدة حقوق و الهیات دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان

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.