همکاری و منازعه در غرب آسیا: تحول رویکردهای نظری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانش‌آموخته دکترای روابط بین‌الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

10.22059/jpq.2022.289429.1007499

چکیده

با هدف بررسی همکاری و منازعه در غرب آسیا از منظر رویکردهای نظری مختلف در رشته روابط بین‌الملل، تبیین‌های واقع‌گرا، لیبرال و برساخته‌انگاری از تحولات منطقه در طول زمان مقایسه شده، و نشان داده می شود که منازعه و همکاری در منطقه در واقع‌گرایی براساس نظم بین‌الملل، ملاحظات نظامی و سیاست قدرت، ایدئولوژی و تحلیل کلی قدرت هنجاری، در لیبرالیسم براساس مردم‌سالاری، نوع نظام سیاسی و انسجام شناختی، و در برساخته‌انگاری براساس عوامل هویتی، نقش‌های ملی، قومیت‌گرایی، فرقه‌گرایی و گفتمان‌های امنیتی دولت‌ها تبیین  شده است. پرسش‌های پژوهشی عبارت‌اند از: 1. چگونه شکل‌گیری همکاری و منازعه در غرب آسیا در نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل تبیین شده‌اند؟ 2. کدام‌یک از این نظریه‌ها استدلال بهتری از تحولات یک دهه اخیر در منطقه ارائه کرده است؟ در فرضیه بیان می‌شود که میزان تاثیرگذاری رویکردهای نظری مختلف بر موفقیت کارشناسان مسایل منطقه‌ای برای درک بهتر همکاری و منازعه در غرب آسیا متفاوت است. استفاده از روش تحلیل مقایسه‌ای استدلال‌های ارائه شده در متون فارسی و انگلیسی نشان می‌دهد که نظریه‌های واقع‌گرایی و لیبرالیسم نمی‌توانند درک کاملی از آنچه امروزه در منطقه جریان دارد، ارائه دهند؛ و برای تبیین تحولات جدید منطقه، به‌ناگزیر با بازبینی اصول نظری خود، عناصر ادراکی و معنایی مورد توجه در تحلیل‌های برساخته‌انگاری را در نظر گرفته‌اند. برساخته‌انگاری با تمرکز بر واقعیت معنایی و بیناذهنی در تحلیل تحولات غرب آسیا موفق‌تر بوده است. تحلیل گفتمان به‌طور ویژه به‌عنوان رویکرد برساخته‌انگار به ما در فهم چگونگی تکوین همکاری و تعارض از راه رویه‌های گفتمانی کمک می‌کند و بهتر می‌تواند ابعادی از ویژگی‌ها و مسائل منطقه‌ای را نشان دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Cooperation and Conflict in West Asia: The Evolution of Theoretical Approaches

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farhad Atai 1
  • Monir Alsadat Mirnezami 2
1 Professor of International Relations, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
2 PhD in International Relations, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The causes and consequences of cooperation and conflict in West Asia have been extensively discussed by international relations sholars using different approaches. The main objective of the authors is to find answers to the following research questions: 1. How have cooperation and conflict in West Asia been analyzed and explained in different theoretical perspectives in international relations? 2. Which of these approches provide a better explanation of the region’s conflict and cooperation in the last decade? Three dominant approaches of realism, liberalism, and a form of idealism (i.e., constructivism) are comparatively examined to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of their explanations of regional developments over time. It was demonstrated that realism explains conflict and cooperation in the region on the basis of international order, military considerations, and the politics of power, ideology and general analysis of normative power. Liberalism’s explanation is based mostly on  democracy, type of political system and cognitive cohesion. The explanation of the sholars using the approach of constructivism  is based on identity factors, ethnicity, sectarianism and security discourses of states. Realists tend to believe that subjective factors are important in the analyses of foreign policy and international relations issues. Ontological dimension of realism is not devoid of subjective elements, but realists have overlooked the process and the mechanism through which all subjective-objective elements influence the decisions and behaviors of governments.
From the perspective of liberalism, many political factors (e.g., regional hegemony, balance of power, sectarianism, nationalism, type of regime and political ideology) are important in shaping a state’s foreign policy bahaviors, which evidently need to be understood in their own historical context. On the other hand, it is not clear how these factors make sense to key decisionmakers  within  governments  and lead them to choose the path of cooperation or conflict. Perceptions and misperceptions influence how leaders decide to develop constructive or conflictive relations with other countries with which they are involved in a dispute. How the key decision-makers perceive a threat to their national security is particularly important becasue conflicts can develop and escalate between regional rivals in conflict situations. Indeed, there is a need to incorporate the context as a factor along with the perceptual and conceptual factors in the analysis of complex issues such as cooperation and conflict in West Asia. International relations theorists have tried to illustrate cooperation and conflict based on the impact of ideas. Even though they accept that ideas are a bridge between actors and reality, two problems remain in understanding cooperation and conflict in this region. First, there is no precise criterion for identifying ideas and identities that are active in constructing cooperation and conflict. Second, there is some confusion in the meaning of ideas and their fluidity and how they work, and this problem has led to overgeneralization in their analyses. The overgeneralization, excessively vague and general statements have resulted in misunderstanding.
The third category of constructivist studies (i.e., discourse analysis) considers cooperation and conflict between governments as constructing the discourse order of actors. Indeed, events, behaviors, practices and decisions can be understood in the context of discourses. Despite the limitations of discourse analysis, including the lack of consensus and even contradictory explanations of the causes of regional conflicts, there is a more clear basis for judging topics and their results because of the use of a more precise methodology. In general, language in the forms of metaphors, assimilations, attributions can be an explanatory factor. Moreover, discourse analysis as a method and theoretical framework could be inventive in topic selection, delineation and results. This type of research does not have a consistent position on actors, dominant policies, and levels of analysis, since it considers everything that happens in reality. Meaning of reality and interpretation of it is central to discourse analysis. Thus, it is clear that the three approaches reveal certain dimensions of the existing challenges in the region. However, we argue that neither realism nor liberalism can provide a comprehensive explanation of the potential impacts of regional challenges such as instability, climate change, demographic change,  soci-economic risks of regional disparities and so forth. Most international relations scholars have had to fundamentally revise their theoretical perspectives and incorporate some elements of constructivism in their analysis especially for the studies of the post-Cold War period. As a result of the emerging changes in the international and regional security environment and the inadequacy of different theories, the scholars within all three approaches have turned to the incorporation of new factors (e.g., cognitive-perceptual factors, identity, norms, beliefs and ideas) in their analyses, but they have failed to fulfill all methodological requirements of robust explanations.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • West Asia
  • Discourse analysis
  • Realism
  • Liberalism
  • Constructivism
  1.  

    1. بیلگین، پینار. (1393) امنیت منطقه‌ای در خاورمیانه، ترجمه عسگر قهرمان‌پور. تهران: مؤسسه فرهنگی مطالعات و تحقیقات بین‌المللی ابرار معاصر.
    2. بر، ویوین. (1395) «برساخت‌گرایی اجتماعی و تحلیل گفتمان،» ترجمه امیر رضائی‌پناه و سمیه شوکتی‌مقرب، در: امیر رضائی­پناه و سمیه شوکتی‌مقرب، تحلیل گفتمان سیاسی: امر سیاسی به‌مثابه یک برساخت گفتمانی. تهران: تیسا.
    3. فرجی‌راد، عبدالرضا؛ ریباز قربانی‌نژاد. (1395) «بررسی و تحلیل موقعیت ژئوپلیتیکی کردستان عراق،» نگرش‌های نو در جغرافیای انسانی، 8، 4: 14-1. در:

    http://geography.journals.iau-garmsar.ac.ir/article_536969.html  (18/8/1400)

    1. ونت، الکساندر. (1386) نظریه اجتماعی سیاست بین­الملل، ترجمه حمیرا مشیرزاده. تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین ­المللی.

     

    1. Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin. (2006) The International Politics of the Persian Gulf: A Cultural Genealogy. London: Routledge.
    2. Altorafi, Adel. (2012) Understanding the Role of State Identity in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Rise and Demise of Saudi–Iranian Rapprochemen (1997-2009). A PhD Dissertation in Political Science, the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
    3. Bang Dahl, Gustav Skjold. (2018) "Understanding the Islamic Cold War,” Paris: the Kuwait Program at Sciences Po (sciencespo.fr). Available at: https://www.sciencespo.fr/kuwait-program/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ Gustav-Skjold-Bang-Dahl-Essay-International-Relations-in-the-Middle-East.pdf (Accessed 5 February 2022).
    4. Barnett, Michael N. (1998) Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order. New York: Columbia University Press.
    5. Baroudi, Sami E. (2010, August) "In the Shadow of the Qur'an: Recent Islamist Discourse on the United States and US Foreign Policy," Middle Eastern Studies 46, 4: 569-594, <DOI: 10.1080/00263206.2010.492992>.
    6. Bensahel, Nora; and Daniel L. Byman. (2004) The Future Security Environment in the Middle East. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
    7. Bilgin, Pinar. (2005) Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.
    8. Bozdaglioglu, Yucel. (2003) Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity: A Constructivist Approach. New York: Routledge.
    9. Chubin, Shahram; and Charles Tripp. (1996) Iran–Saudi Arabian Relations and Regional Order. Washington D. C.: International Institute for Strategic Studies.
    10. Collins, Allen. (2010) Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    11. Cox, Robert. (1985). Realism, Marxism, and an Approach to a Critical Theory of World Order, in Approaches to World Order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    12. Darwich, May. (2014, December) "The Ontological (In) Security of Similarity: Wahhabism Versus Islamism in Saudi Foreign Policy," GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies 263, 1: 1-26, Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep07672 (Accessed 5 February 2022).
    13. Dougherty, James; and Robert Pfaltzgraff. (1981) Contending Theories of International Relations. London: Longman.
    14. Erdogan, Birsen. (2017) Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Turkish Foreign Policy Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    15. Ferederking, Brian. (2003, Augest) "Constructing Post Cold War Collective Security," American Political Science Review 97, 3: 363-378, <DOI: 10.1017/S0003055403000741>.
    16. Fürtig, Henner. (2002) Iran's Rivalry with Saudi Arabia between the Gulf Wars. Reading: Ithaca Press.
    17. Goldman, Ogen; and Uriel Abulof. (2015, March) "The Domestic Democratic Peace in the Middle East," International Journal of Conflict and Violence 9, 1: 72-89, <DOI: 10.4119/ijcv-3069>.
    18. Gimenez Cerioli, Luíza. (2018, May) “Roles and International Behaviour: Saudi-Iranian Rivalry in Bahrain’s and Yemen’s Arab Spring,” Contexto Internacional 40, 2: 295-316, <DOI:10.1590/s0102-8529.2018400200010>.
    19. Heller, Mark A. (2003, Autumn) "Prospects for Creating a Regional Security Structure in the Middle East," Journal of Strategic Studies 26, 3: 125-136, <DOI:10.1080/01402390412331303085>.
    20. Hinnebusch, Reymond; and Anoushirvan Ehteshami. (2014) The Foreign Policies of Middle East States. Colorado and London: Lynne Rinner Publisher.
    21. Hopf, Ted. (1998) "The Promise of Constructivism in International Theory," International Security 23, 1: 171-200, <DOI:10.1162/isec.23.1.171>.
    22. Jacoby, Tami Amanda; and Brent E. Sasley. (2002) Redefining Security in the Middle East. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
    23. Jervis, Robert. (1978) Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    24. Korany, Bahgat. (2008) "Foreign Policy Approaches and Arab Countries: A Critical Evaluation and an Alternative Framework," in Bahgat Korany, et al. eds. The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
    25. Korany, Bahgat; and Moataz Fattah. (2008) "Irreconcilable Role-Partners?: Saudi Foreign Policy between the Ulama and the US," in Bahgat Korany, et al. eds. The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
    26. Korany, Bahgat; and Ali E. Hillal Dessouki. (2008) "Foreign Policy Analysis in the Global Era and the World of the Arabs," in Bahgat Korany, et al. eds. The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
    27. Korany, Bahgat, et al. (1993) "The Analysis of National Security in the Arab Context: Restating the State of the Art," in Bahgat Korany, et al. eds. The Many Faces of National Security in the Arab World. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    28. Maoz, Zeev, et al. (2004) Building Regional Security in the Middle East: International, Regional and Domestic Influences. London: Frank Cass.
    29. Mohammad Nia, Mahdi. (2012, September) "Discourse and Identity in Iran’s Foreign Policy," Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs 3, 3: 29-64. Available at: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/irfa/v3i3/f_0027444_22424.pdf (Accessed 10 November 2021).
    30. Mutuku, Carolina. (2017) “Evolution of International Relations Theory,” A Seminar Paper. (grin.com) Available at: https://www.grin.com/document/ 428509 (Accessed 12 March 2022).
    31. Parlar Dal, Emel. (2015, May) "A Normative Approach to Contemporary Turkish Foreign Policy: the Cosmopolitanism–Communitarianism Divide," International Journal 70, 3: 421-433, <DOI: 10.1177/0020702015584306>.
    32. Ramazani, Rouhollah. (1992, Summer) "Iran's Foreign Policy: Both North and South," Middle East Journal 46, 3: 393-412. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328462 (Accessed 10 November 2021).
    33. Raymond, Leigh; and Andrea Olive. (2009, April) "Ideas, Discourse, and Rhetoric in Political Choice," Polity 41, 2: 189-210. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40213500 (Accessed 8 November 2021).
    34. Roy, Oliver. (2008) The Politics of Chaos in The Middle East. New York: Clombia University Press.
    35. Rynhold, Jonathan. (2008) "Realism, Liberalism, and the Collapse of the Oslo Process: Inherently Flawed or Flawed Implementation?" in Guy Ben-Porat, ed. The Failure of the Middle East Peace Processes. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
    36. Sasley, Brent E. (2011, January) "Studying Middle Eastern International Relations through IR Theory," OrtadoğuEtütleri 2, 2: 9-32. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/209576 (Accessed 8 November 2021).
    37. Solingen, Etel. (1996, January) "Democracy, Economic Reform and Regional Cooperation," Journal of Theoretical Politics 8, 1: 79-114, <DOI:10. 1177%2F0951692896008001005>.
    38. Stein, Ewan. (2012, October) "Beyond Arabism vs. Sovereignty: Relocating Ideas in the International Relations of the Middle East," Review of International Studies 38, 4: 881-905, < DOI: 10.1017/S0260210511000465>.
    39. Stetter, Stephan. (2008). World Society and the Middle East: Reconstructions in Regional Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    40. Tang, Shiping. (2010) The Security Dillema: A Conceptual Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    41. Walt, Stephen. (1987) The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    46.———. (1998, Spring) "International Relations: One World, Many Theories," Foreign Policy 1, 110: 31-60, <DOI:10.2307/1149275>.

    1. Wehrey, Fredric; et al. (2009) Saudi-Iranian Relations since the Fall of Saddam. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
    2. Więcławski, Jacek. (2015, Winter) “The Case of the Russians in Latvia and the Need of the Comprehensive Research Approach in Contemporary International Relations,” International Journal of Social Science Research 3, 1: 120-133, <DOI: 10.5296/ijssr.v3i1.6917>