All
 
|
 
 


Models of Regional Leadership in Eurasia: to the New Research Agenda
 
PIIS013122270013264-1-1
DOI10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-11-114-123
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Irina Busygina 
Occupation: Director, Center for Comparative Governance Studies
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg)
Address: 123, Кanala Griboedova Nab., Saint-Petersburg, 190068, Russian Federation
Ivan S. Grigoriev
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg)
Address: 123, Кanala Griboedova Nab., Saint-Petersburg, 190068, Russian Federation
Anna A. Dekalchuk
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg)
Address: 123, Кanala Griboedova Nab., Saint-Petersburg, 190068, Russian Federation
Yury A. Kabanov
Occupation: Senior Lecturer
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg)
Address: 123, Кanala Griboedova Nab., Saint-Petersburg, 190068, Russian Federation
Svetlana Krivokhizh
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg)
Address: 123, Кanala Griboedova Nab., Saint-Petersburg, 190068, Russian Federation
Helena Soboleva
Occupation: Senior Lecturer
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg)
Address: 123, Кanala Griboedova Nab., Saint-Petersburg, 190068, Russian Federation
Journal nameMirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia
EditionVolume 64 Issue 11
Pages114-123
Abstract

One of the important tasks in the study of international politics today is the elaboration and empirical verification of new theoretical models for the coexistence of several regional leadership projects, simultaneously implemented by various countries and international organizations. Until now, the existing models, as a rule, have described this kind of leadership at the international arena in fundamentally hierarchical terms: either as a unipolar world with a hegemonic country dominating global politics, or as a bipolar system. These models unambiguously assume that the world either “belongs” to one hegemon, or is divided between two superpowers. In the latter case, there are practically no regions where both leadership projects would be carried out simultaneously, since such a geographical “overlap” would inevitably provoke conflict. Meanwhile, the task of understanding and explaining the internal mechanics of the simultaneous coexistence of several potential leaders on the same geographic territory for a fairly long time remains unsolved. In the modern world, such parallel (joint or competitive) leadership can no longer be regarded as an anomaly or a temporary phenomenon, it becomes a “new normality”, creating additional opportunities for international players, but at the same time imposing more substantial constraints on them. Thus, the relevance of the agenda put forward in the article is determined by a number of circumstances, the most fundamental of which is the crisis of the global governance system and the neoliberal model of globalization. Today, macro-regions become “building blocks” for the multipolar structure of the world, and the role of individual states or their groups, which begin to play a structure-forming role in “their” macro-regions, is increasing. These are potential leaders with special characteristics and special relations with their “followers”. The problem of leadership is most interestingly actualized in the Eurasian region, the internationalization of which is rapidly growing. In this region, several leaders are observed (such as Russia, China, the European Union) who compete for the same followers, offering them different agendas and using a wide range of power tools – from “soft” to “hard” power. It is in Eurasia that the variability of relations connecting the leader and followers is extremely high. In this article, the authors put forward and ground the possibility and necessity of developing a research agenda on regional leadership based on the material of modern Eurasia – the most important world macro-region where three leadership projects are being successfully implemented at the same time, the description and analysis of which in their interconnection go beyond the Eurasian theme only and can help advance our understanding of the nature of multipolarity in modern international relations.

Keywordsregional leadership, international relations, Eurasia, Russia, China, European Union
AcknowledgmentThe article has been supported by a grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR). Project no. 19-014-00030 “Leadership Models in Multipolar World: Comparative Analysis of Strategies of Russia, China and the European Union in Eurasian Region”.
Received29.12.2020
Publication date29.12.2020
Number of characters29614
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

Table of contents

КОНЦЕПТУАЛИЗАЦИЯ РЕГИОНАЛЬНОГО ЛИДЕРСТВА
ЛИДЕРСТВО В ЕВРАЗИИ: РОССИЯ, КИТАЙ, ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СОЮЗ
ПОЧЕМУ ЕВРАЗИЯ?
ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ НОВОЙ ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКОЙ ПОВЕСТКИ
1 Фарид Закария назвал современный период третьим великим тектоническим сдвигом в распределении силы на международной арене1. Это время подъема “остальных” наций (именно поэтому книга, в которой аналитик вводит данную периодизацию, носит название “Постамериканский мир”), причем этот подъем особенно отчетливо проявляется в Азии [1]. Новый период поставил новые фундаментальные научные задачи, одной из важнейших в исследованиях международной политики стало создание и эмпирическая проверка новых теоретических моделей сосуществования нескольких региональных лидерских проектов, параллельно реализуемых различными странами и международными организациями. Существующие на сегодняшний день научные модели, как правило, описывают такого рода конфигурации лидерства на международной арене в принципиально иерархических терминах: это либо модель однополярного мира со страной-гегемоном, доминирующей в глобальной политике; либо биполярная (типичная, в частности, для мировой политики времен холодной войны), где между двумя лагерями, внутри себя организованными иерархически, происходит противостояние, поддерживаемое непроницаемостью границы между ними [2]. В последнем случае регионов, где бы параллельно осуществлялись оба проекта лидерства, практически не существует, поскольку такое географическое “наложение” неизбежно провоцировало бы конфликт (открытый или в редких случаях латентный), который в биполярной модели и является основным механизмом снятия двойственности в системе. 1. По мнению Закария, первым был сдвиг, связанный с концентрацией силы на Западе во времена Ренессанса, а вторым – сдвиг силы в США с превращением их в супердержаву.
2 Однако в настоящее время такое “наложение” потенциальных зон влияния стало не аномалией, но, скорее, правилом, поэтому прежние иерархические модели лидерства оказались не вполне адекватными для понимания природы и траектории развития современного многополярного мира [3]. Действительно, в новейшей литературе, изучающей этот феномен, нынешнее состояние принято характеризовать как гетерархическое, то есть такое, в котором одновременно возможно развитие сразу нескольких проектов лидерства [4]. Несмотря на то что в теории международных отношений (МО) данная тема получила некоторое развитие, систематического эмпирического исследования реализации такой модели параллельного лидерства до сих пор не проводилось: авторы существующих работ задаются по большей части вопросами об индивидуальных стратегиях стран-гегемонов, а также о природе и успешности реализуемых ими проектов лидерства. Между тем несформулированной и нерешенной остается задача осмысления внутренней механики одновременного сосуществования на одной географической территории нескольких потенциальных лидеров в течение достаточно долгого времени, когда такое параллельное (совместное или конкурентное) лидерство не может рассматриваться как аномалия или временное явление, но становится “новой нормальностью”, создавая для международных игроков дополнительные возможности, однако и накладывая ни них более существенные ограничения.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 636

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Zakaria F. The Post-American World. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2008. 292 p.
2. Lake D. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2009. 232 p.
3. Layne C. This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana. International Studies Quarterly, 2012, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 203-13. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00704.x
4. Donnelly J. Rethinking Political Structures: From ‘Ordering Principles’ to ‘Vertical Differentiation’ – and Beyond. International Theory, 2009, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 49-86. DOI:10.1017/S1752971909000037
5. Nabers D. Power, Leadership, and Hegemony in International Politics: The Case of East Asia. Review of International Studies, 2010, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 931-949. DOI:10.1017/S0260210510001373
6. Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove (Illinois), Waveland Press, 1979. 251 p.
7. Morgenthau H. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York, Alfred A. Knope, 1967. 615 p.
8. Mearsheimer J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. 555 p.
9. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 192 p.
10. Young O. Political Leadership and Regime Formation: On the Development of Institutions in International Society. International Organization, 1991, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 281-308. DOI:10.1017/S0020818300033117
11. Ikenberry G.J., Kupchan C. Socialization and Hegemonic Power. International Organization, 1990, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 283-315.
12. Williams L. Abundance, Lack, and Identity. Journal of Political Ideologies, 2007, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 109-126. DOI:10.1080/13569310701284951
13. Dawisha K., Parrott B. Russia and the New States of Eurasia: The Politics of Upheaval. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994. 437 p.
14. Tsygankov A. Mastering Space in Eurasia: Russia’s Geopolitical Thinking after the Soviet Break-Up. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 2003, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 101-127. DOI:10.1016/S0967-067X(02)00055-7
15. Smith G. The Masks of Proteus: Russia, Geopolitical Shift and the New Eurasianism. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 1999, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 481-494. DOI:10.1111/j.0020-2754.1999.t01-2-00481.x
16. Wilson J. The Russian Pursuit of Regional Hegemony. Rising Powers Quarterly, 2017, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7-25.
17. Nygren B. The Rebuilding of Greater Russia: Putin’s Foreign Policy towards the CIS Countries. London, Routledge, 2007. 352 p. DOI:10.4324/9780203939901
18. MacFarlane S.N. Contested Regional Leadership: Russia and Eurasia. Regional Powers and Contested Leadership. Ebert H., Flemmes D., eds. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, pp. 275-299. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-73691-4_10
19. Cooley A. Whose Rules, Whose Sphere? Russian Governance and Influence in Post-Soviet States. Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2017. 12 p.
20. Freire M.R., Kanet R. Introduction: Russia and Its Near Neighbours. Russia and Its Near Neighbours. Freire M.R., Kanet R., eds. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 1-14. DOI:10.1057/9780230390164_1
21. Monaghan A. Russia’s Energy Diplomacy: A Political Idea Lacking a Strategy? Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2007, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 275-288. DOI:10.1080/14683850701402201
22. Lebedeva M., Kharkevich M. “Myagkaya sila” Rossii v razvitii integratsionnykh protsessov na evrazijskom prostranstve. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta, 2014, № 2 (35), cc. 10-13. [Lebedeva M., Kharkevich M. “Myagkaya sila” Rossii v razvitii integratsionnykh protsessov na evraziiskom prostranstve [Russia’s Soft Power in Developing integration in Eurasia]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta, 2014, no. 2 (35), pp. 10-13.]
23. Ćwiek-Karpowicz J. Limits to Russian Soft Power in the Post-Soviet Area. Economization versus Power Ambitions: Rethinking Russia’s Policy Towards Post-Soviet States. Meister S., ed. Baden-Baden, DGAP and Nomos, 2013, pp. 47-58. DOI:10.5771/9783845241968-47
24. Libman A., Obydenkova A. Regional International Organizations as a Strategy of Autocracy: The Eurasian Economic Union and Russian Foreign Policy. International Affairs, 2018, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1037-1058. DOI:10.1093/ia/iiy147
25. Way L. The Limits of Autocracy Promotion: The Case of Russia in the ‘near Abroad. European Journal of Political Research, 2015, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 691-706. DOI:10.1111/1475-6765.12092
26. Cadier D. Eastern Partnership vs Eurasian Union? The EU–Russia Competition in the Shared Neighbourhood and the Ukraine Crisis. Global Policy, 2014, vol. 5, pp. 76-85. DOI:10.1111/1758-5899.12152
27. Lukin A. Russia, China, and the Emerging Greater Eurasia. International Relations and Asia’s Northern Tier. Rozman G., Radchenko S., eds. Singapore, Palgrave, 2018, pp. 75-91. DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-3144-1_5
28. Meister S. Hedging and Wedging: Strategies to Contest Russia’s Leadership in Post-Soviet Eurasia. Regional Powers and Contested Leadership. Ebert H., Flemmes D., eds. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, pp. 301-326. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-73691-4_11
29. Chan G. China’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis and Its Regional Leadership in East Asia. Asia Europe Journal, 2012, vol. 9, no. 2–4, pp. 197-209. DOI:10.1007/s10308-012-0306-6
30. Breslin S. Understanding China’s Regional Rise: Interpretations, Identities and Implications. International Affairs, 2009, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 817-835. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00829.x
31. Lam P., Lim T., eds. The Rise of China and India: A New Asian Drama. Singapore, World Scientific, 2009. 176 p. DOI:10.1142/7381
32. Park J. Regional Leadership Dynamics and the Evolution of East Asian Regionalism. Pacific Focus, 2012, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 290-318. DOI:10.1111/j.1976-5118.2012.01085.x
33. Kaczmarski M. Russian-Chinese Relations in Eurasia: Harmonization or Subordination? Helsinki, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, 2018. 7 p.
34. Glenn J.G. China’s Challenge to US Supremacy: Economic Superpower versus Rising Star. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 257 p. DOI:10.1057/978-1-349-95157-4
35. Hsiung J. China into Its Second Rise: Myths, Puzzles, Paradoxes, and Challenge to Theory. Singapore, World Scientific, 2012. 340 p. DOI:10.1142/7940
36. Krivokhizh S., Soboleva E. Drevnost' na sluzhbe sovremennosti: teoriya moral'nogo realizma Yan' Syuehtuna i buduschee mirovogo poryadka. Mirovaya ehkonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2017, t. 61, № 11, cc. 76-84. [Krivokhizh S., Soboleva E. Drevnost' na sluzhbe sovremennosti: teoriya moral'nogo realizma Yan' Syuetuna i budushchee mirovogo poryadka [The Past Serving the Present: Yan Xuetong’s Theory of Moral Realism and the Future of the Global Order]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2017, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 76-84.] DOI:10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-11-76-84
37. Dian M., Menegazzi S. New Regional Initiatives in China’s Foreign Policy: The Incoming Pluralism of Global Governance. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 136 p. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-75505-2
38. Luttwak E. The Rise of China vs. the Logic of Strategy. Harvard University Press, 2012. 320 p.
39. Sjursen H., ed. Civilian or Military Power? European Foreign Policy in Perspective. London, Routledge, 2013. 176 p. DOI:10.4324/9781315878874
40. Busygina I. Russia–EU Relations and the Common Neighborhood: Coercion vs. Authority. London, Routledge, 2017. 250 p. DOI:10.4324/9781315443966
41. Manners I. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 235-258. DOI:10.1111/1468-5965.00353
42. Delcour L. Shaping the Post-Soviet Space? EU Policies and Approaches to Region-Building. London, Routledge, 2016. 194 p. DOI:10.4324/9781315608846
43. Haukkala H. The Russian Challenge to EU Normative Power: The Case of European Neighbourhood Policy. The International Spectator, 2008, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 35-47. DOI:10.1080/03932720802057117
44. Haukkala H. The European Union as a Regional Normative Hegemon: The Case of European Neighbourhood Policy. Europe-Asia Studies, 2008, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1601-1622. DOI:10.1080/09668130802362342
45. Delcour L. The EU and Russia in Their “Contested Neighbourhood”: Multiple External Influences, Policy Transfer and Domestic Change. London, Routledge, 2017. 180 p. DOI:10.4324/9781315644370
46. Ambrosio T. Authoritarian Backlash: Russian Resistance to Democratization in the Former Soviet Union. Farnham, Burlington, Ashgate, 2009. 240 p.
47. Haukkala H. From Cooperative to Contested Europe? The Conflict in Ukraine as a Culmination of a Long-Term Crisis in EU–Russia Relations. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2015, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 25-40. DOI:10.1080/14782804.2014.1001822
48. Dellios R., Ferguson R.J. China’s Quest for Global Order: From Peaceful Rise to Harmonious World. Lanham, MD, Lexington Books, 2012. 161 p.
49. Luhmann N. Globalization or World Society: How to Conceive of Modern Society? International Review of Sociology, 1997, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 67-79. DOI: 10.1080/03906701.1997.9971223

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up