نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار روابط بین‌الملل دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
سیاست بین‌الملل عرصه‌ای است که به‌عنوان برآیند سیاست خارجی تک‌تک دولت‌ها شکل می‌گیرد. در این میان، سیاست خارجی دولت‌ها نیز برحسب راهبرد یا راهبردهایی که برای پیشبرد آن تجویز می‌شوند شکل می‌گیرد. سیر تکاملی ادبیات روابط بین‌الملل و واقعیت متحول سیاست جهانی و بالطبع، نحوه واکنش دولت‌ها بدان باعث برآمدن روند جدیدی در عرصه بینالمللی شده است که گفته می‌شود، متأثر از راهبرد بدیع و نوظهوری به نام «حفاظ‌بندی» در سیاست خارجی بسیاری از دولت‌ها در نظام‌بین‌الملل کنونی است، به‌گونه‌ای که در طی بیش از دو دهه اخیر در محافل علمی و سیاست‌گذاری بیش‌ازپیش مطرح شده است. بر همین اساس، نوشتار حاضر این سؤال را مطرح می‌کند که حفاظ‌بندی به‌عنوان راهبردی نوظهور در سیاست خارجی دولت‌ها چه تفاوت‌ها و مشابهت‌هایی با سایر راهبردهای سنتی دولت‌ها که در طول تاریخ روابط بین‌الملل پی گرفته شده‌اند دارد؟ پاسخ به این سؤال در گروِ ارائه تحلیل مقایسه‌ای میان حفاظ‌بندی از یک سو و سایر راهبردهای سنتی دولت‌ها از سوی دیگر است. برای انجام این کار، نحوه گردآوری داده‌ها، به روش کتابخانه‌ای و جستجوی اینترنتی بر پایه بهره‌گیری از داده‌های ثانویه، البته با تمرکز بر مباحث نظری و مفهومیِ آن‌هاست و تلاش می‌شود با بهره‌گیری از روش مقایسه‌ای بر پایه تحلیل محتوای داده‌های کیفیِ مندرج در متون تحلیل سیاست خارجی، مشابهت‌ها و تفاوت‌ها میان آن‌ها نشان داده شود تا بتوان به ارزیابی مناسبی درباره جایگاه حفاظ‌بندی در تحلیل سیاست خارجی دست یافت. مهم‌ترین یافته مقاله این است که حفاظ‌بندی لاجرم نوعی صلح‌جویی فعال در عرصه بینالمللی است، خصلتی که در هیچ‌یک از راهبردهای دیگر دیده نمی‌شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
"Hedging" and Other State Strategies in the Contemporary International System: A Comparative Reintroduction
نویسنده [English]
- Roohollah Talebi Arani
Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Introduction: International politics is a sphere shaped by the foreign policy of individual states. Meanwhile, the foreign policy of states proceeds according to the strategy or strategies prescribed to advance it. On the other hand, the mindset of the states' decision-makers, the historical evolution of their international relations, the interactions they have had with each other, and the experiences they have accumulated through these interactions have played a significant role in the states' decision to choose and change different strategies. In this framework, states have usually used one of the strategies of "neutrality, isolationism, alliance, and non-alignment" to advance their foreign policy, strategies that are known as "traditional strategies" of states and have been formed in their historical and empirical context. Accordingly, the issue addressed in this article is to examine the differences and similarities between hedging as an emerging strategy in the foreign policy of states and other traditional strategies, such as alliances, neutrality, isolationism, and non-alignment, which have been pursued throughout the history of international relations.
Thus, many works have been written throughout the life of international relations as an academic discipline focusing on state strategies. These works have either considered strategies within the framework of foreign policy, which is examined in terms of the field of "Foreign Policy Analysis" and accordingly, strategy selection is placed under policymaking, or they have been viewed during the Cold War in the field of Strategic Studies and thereafter in the newly established field of "Security Studies", and from this perspective, they are discussed in relation to the phenomenon of war and its probability of occurrence, and are placed above military operations. In this article, state strategies are considered within the framework of their foreign policy.
Aim and Discussion: This article attempts to present a comparative analysis between containment on the one hand and other traditional state strategies, namely alliance, neutrality, isolationism, and non-alignment, on the other, in order to explain the position of hedging as a foreign policy strategy. Furthermore, given that hedging is very new, both as a concept in the academic world and as an explicit and prominent strategy in the foreign policymaking of states in the international system, it seems necessary to recognize its similarities and differences with other foreign policy strategies of states that, on the one hand, are prevalent in both the fields of International Relations and Foreign Policy Analysis, and on the other hand, have a long-standing history in the discourse of national and international politicians and diplomats.
Method: In doing so, the data collection method is through library and internet searches based on the use of secondary data, focusing on their theoretical and conceptual issues. We aim to show the similarities and differences between them by using a comparative method based on content analysis of qualitative data contained in texts on foreign policy analysis in order to arrive at a proper assessment on the place of hedging in Foreign Policy Analysis.
Findings: Hedging has significant differences from all traditional strategies; unlike all other strategies, it is not related to threats but to risks; it can incorporate all other strategies and cover their behavioral aspects; it is a strategy for managing one's own situation, not a strategy for controlling the actions of others or external events; it involves a kind of continuous and comprehensive cooperation in the international environment; it is not conflict-generating and does not have the prospect of conflict; it has a positive view of the international arena and requires that states be proactive rather than reactive; and finally, it is never based on a mental assumption about the intentions of others; in such a way that the hedger state always calculates its circumstantial contingencies.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Foreign Policy Analysis
- Comparative Analysis
- State Strategies
- Hedging
فارسی
- اسنایدر، گ. (1384)، امنیت و استراتژی معاصر، ترجمه سیدحسین محمدی‌نجم، تهران: بسیج .
- بِرگِر مارک تی. و وِبِر، هِلُویس (1401)، نگاهی نو به جهان سوم، ترجمه روح اله طالبی آرانی، تهران: مخاطب.
- دهقانی فیروزآبادی، سیدجلال (1392)، کلیات روابط بین‌الملل، تهران: نشر مخاطب.
- عبدالله خانی، ع. (1388)، نظریه‌های امنیت، تهران: انتشارات ابرار معاصر تهران.
- قوام، ع. (1388)، اصول سیاست خارجی و سیاست بین‌الملل، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
- کالاهان، پ. (1402)، منطق سیاست خارجی امریکا: نظریه‌های نقش جهانی امریکا، ترجمه داوود غرایاق‌زندی، محمود یزدان‌فام و نادر پورآخوندی، تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
- والتس، ک. (1394)، نظریه سیاست بین‌الملل، ترجمه روح اله طالبی آرانی، تهران: نشر مخاطب.
- References
- Agius, C. (2006), the social construction of Swedish neutrality: Challenges to Swedish identity and sovereignty, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Agius, C., & Devine, K. (2011). ‘Neutrality: A really dead concept?’ A reprise. Cooperation & Conflict, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp, 265-284.
- Numan T. I. & Rakipoğlu, M. (2021), Hedging as a Survival Strategy for Small States: The Case of Kuwait, Sakarya University, Middle East Institute, Sakarya University, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 213-229.
- Chen, I.T.-Y. And Yang, A. H. (2013) A harmonized Southeast Asia? Explanatory typologies of ASEAN countries’ strategies to the rise of China, The Pacific Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 265–288.
- Danspeckgruber, W. (1986). Armed Neutrality: Its Application and Future, in Stephen J. Flanagen and Fen Osler Hampson (eds), Securing Europe s future, John F. Kennedy School of Government. Center for Science and International Affairs, 1986, pp. 242-280
- Goh, E. (2005), Meeting the China Challenge: The U.S. in Southeast Asian Regional Security Strategies, Washington, D.C.: East-West Center Washington.
- Haacke, J. (2019), The Concept of Hedging and Its Application to Southeast Asia: a Critique and a Proposal for a Modified Conceptual and Methodological Framework, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 375–417.
- He, K. (2008), Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory: Economic Interdependence and Balance of Power Strategies in Southeast Asia, European Journal of International Relations, 14, No. 3, pp. 489–518.
- Jackson, V. (2014), Power, Trust, and Network Complexity: Three Logics of Hedging in Asian Security, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 331-356.
- Koga, K. (2018), The Concept of “Hedging” Revisited: the Case of Japan’s Foreign Policy Strategy in East Asia’s Power Shift, International Studies Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 633–660.
- Korolev, A (2022), The Ordinal Model of Strategic Alignment, in Alexander Korolev, China-Russia Strategic Alignment in International Politics, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 35–64.
- Kuik, C. (2024), Explaining Hedging: The Case of Malaysian Equidistance, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 43–76.
- Kuik C. (2008), The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30, No. 2, pp. 159–85.
- Lee, T. (2024), The Domestic Determinants of Hedging in Singapore’s Foreign Policy, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 77–102
- Lim, D. J. & Cooper, Z. (2015), Reassessing Hedging: The Logic of Alignment in East Asia, Security Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 696–727.
- Nitoiu, C. & Sus, M. (2019), Introduction: Strategy in EU Foreign Policy, International Politics, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 259–271.
- Salman, M. and Geeraerts, G. (2015), Strategic hedging and China’s economic policy in the Middle East, China Report, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 102–120.
- Salman, M, Pieper, M. A. & Geeraerts, G. (2015), Hedging in the Middle East and China U.S. Competition, Asian Politics & Policy, Vol. 7, No. 4.
- Schweller, R. L. (1994), Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back in, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 72–107.
- Snyder, G. (1984), The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics, World Politics, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 461–95.
- Snyder, G. (1990), Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 103–23.
- Walt, S. (1987), The Origin of Alliances, Ithaca, NY: Columbia University Press.
Translated References into English
- Abdollah Khani, A. (2009), Security Theories, Tehran: Abrar Moaser Tehran Publications [In Persian].
- Berger, Mark T. and Weber, Heloise (2001), Rethinking the Third World, translated by Roohollah Talebi Arani, Tehran: Mokhatab [In Persian].
- Callahan, P. (2002), The Logic of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America's Global Role, translated by Davoud Gharayagh-Zandi, Mahmoud Yazdanfam and Nader Pourakhoundi, Tehran: Strategic Studies Research Institute Publications [In Persian].
- Dehghani Firouzabadi, Seyyed Jalal (2013), Generalities of International Relations, Tehran: Mokhatab [In Persian].
- Ghavam, A. (2009), Principles of Foreign Policy and International Politics, Tehran: Samt Publications [In Persian].
- Snyder, G. (2005), Contemporary Security and Strategy, translated by Seyyed Hossein Mohammadi-Najam, Tehran: Basij. [In Persian].
- Waltz, K.(2015), Theory of International Politics, translated by Roohollah Talebi Arani, Tehran: Mokhatab [In Persian].
)