Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

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.

Keywords

  • 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].