توانمندی و هویت: دو درک متفاوت از امنیت در مکتب کپنهاک
نویسنده
دانشگاه علامهاستادیار روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
چکیده
رقابت و همکاری دو روی سکه روابط بین‌الملل در طول تاریخ بوده‌اند. رقابت به‌ضرورت توجه را معطوف به اهمیت ظرفیت‌های مادی می‌سازد. همکاری از نظر ماهیت، نگاه را به سوی مؤلفه‌های مترتب به کارگزار سوق می‌دهد. امنیت به عنوان باارزش‌ترین کالا در چهارچوب تئوریک ساختاری در بطن نظمی برای بازیگر حیات می‌یابد که او در آن از جایگاهی متمایز برخوردار است. توزیع توانمندی‌ها به‌گونه‌ای رقم خورده‌اند که برای او نفوذ را پدید آورده‌اند. در بطن تأکید بر اهمیت هویت کارگزار در شکل دادن به پدیده‌ها و حوادث، نظمی در صحنه روابط بین‌الملل باید حیات یابد که کمترین میزان تعارض هویتی و فزون‌ترین شباهت بین‌الاذهانی را حیات دهد. چنین نظمی بستر مساعد برای حیات یافتن نیازهای امنیتی را به 0وجود می‌آورد. روابط بین‌الملل مطلوب برای هر بازیگر محققاً بستگی به آن دارد که تا چه حد امکان تحقق امنیت وجود دارد. سؤال مقاله این است که مطلوب‌ترین چهارچوب برای شکل دادن به امنیت کدام است. با درک ماهیت چندبعدی امنیت و اینکه جنبه‌های مادی و اجتماعی، نقشی تعیین‌کننده در شکل دادن به این مقوله دارند، فرضیه مقاله تأکید دارد که محیطی با کمترین تعارض هویتی و بالاترین جایگاه برای بازیگر، محققاً مناسب‌ترین فضای امنیتی را حیات می‌دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Capability and Identity: Two different understanding of security in international The Copenhagen School
نویسنده [English]
- Hossein Daheshiar
Assistant Professor of International Relations, Allameh Tabatabai University
چکیده [English]
Competition and cooperation have been two sides of the coin of international relations within the length of time. Competition necessarily draws attention to the importance of material capacity. Naturally, cooperation leads vision to the agent-based components. Security as the most valuable commodity in the structure of theoretical framework vitalizes within the discipline for the actor who has a distinct position and distribution of capabilities has marked influence for him. Emphasizing the importance of the agent's identity in shaping phenomena and events, a discipline should be manifested in international relations which provides the lowest identity conflicts and the most intersubjective similarity. Such a discipline creates the auspicious context to vitalize all security requirements. Optimal international relations for each player certainly depends on the issue that “to what extent the security will be achieved?” Paper question is “what is the best framework to security shaping?” Given the multidimensional essence of security and that the material and social aspects have a decisive role in shaping the mentioned issues, the hypothesis of paper is focused on the environment with minimal conflict of identity and highest position for the player which is certainly the appropriate secure environment
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Competition
- cooperation
- material capacity
- normative capacity
- Security
Keohane, Robert o. 1988. " International Institutions: Two Approaohes" International studies Quarterly, Vol. 32,No.4.
Owen, john M. 1994."How Liberalism Produced Democratic Peace" internoutional Security: Vol. 19: No.2.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1969. Theoly of International Relations. Reading, Mass: Addison – Wesley.
Halliday, Fred, 2009." International Relations in a post – hegemonic age", International Affairs, Vol. 85,No.1.
Huizinga, johan. 1973."The idea of History", in Fritz stern. ed. The Variety of History: From Voltaire to the Present. New York. Vintage Books.
Walt, Stephen M. 2005. Taming American Power: Th Global Response to U.S. Primacy. New York: W.W. Norton.
Krauthammer, Charles. 2002-03." The Unipolar Moment Revisited". The National Interest, No. 60.
Layne, Christopher, 2006. "The Unipolar Illusion Revisited", International Security, Vol. 31,No.2.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2000, " structural Realism After the Cold War", International Security, Vol. 25,No.1.
Waltz, Kenneth N.1986."Refelection on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics" in Robert O.Keohane. ed. Neorealism and its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Thies, Cameron G. 2004." Are Two Theories Better than one? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist and Neoliberal Debate", International Political Science Review, Vol.25,No.2.
Jeffrey, Alexander. 1988. Action and its Environment: Toward a New Synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tajfel, Henry. 1981. Human GroUps and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Desseler, David. 1915."What is at stake in the Agent – structure Debate" International organization, Vol. 43. No.3.
Walker, R.B.J.ed.1984. Culture, Ideology, and world order. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.
Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. 2008."Liberal Institutionalism and Cooperation After 11 September,"International Studies, Vol. 43,No.3.
Newman, Edward. 2001. "Human Security and Constructivism" International Studies Quarterly, Vol.2.No.1.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1993." Why International Primacy Matters" International Security, vol. 17, No.4.
Lemke, Douglas, 1996." Countinuity of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the cold war", journal of Peace Research, vol. 34,No.1.
Mastanduno, Michael, 1996." Preserving the Unipolar Moment: Realist Theories and U.S Grand Strategy after the cold war" international Security, vol. 21. No.4.
Booth, K. 1996." Secutity and Self: Reflections of a fallen Realist", in k. Rcause and M. Williams, eds. Critical Security studies: concepts and cases. London: UCL Press.
Wohlforth, William C. 1999. " the stability of a unipolar world", International seccrity, vol. 24,No.1.
Nayar, Baldev Raj and T.V.Paul. 2003. India and the world order for a Major Power status. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity press.
Hirst, Paul Q. 2002. "Another century of conflict? War and the international system in 21st century", International Relations, vol. 16.
Buzan, Barry. 1993. " From International system to International society: structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English school," International organization, vol. 47,No.3.
Brooks, Stephen G. and William C.wohlforth. 2008. world of Balanced International Relations and the challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton university press.
Layne, Christopher. 1993. "the unipolar Illusion: why New Great Powers will Arise. "International sexurity, vol. 17,No.4.
Rosecrance, Richard, ed. 2001. the New Great power coalition toward world concert of Nations. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ikenberry, G. john. 2001. After victory, Institution, strategic Restraint and the Building of order After Major wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
)