ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 6 ( 2017/1 ) |
FINDING A THEORETICAL APPROACH FOR STUDYING POST-SOVIET ‘FROZEN’ CONFLICTS
İBRAHİM MURADOV*
Summary
It is critical
to understand the forces and phenomenon behind regional conflicts, inhibiting
development of various regions around the world. This paper focuses on two regions
South Caucasus and Eastern Europe that face unresolved conflicts which can also
be termed as ‘frozen’ conflicts with an in depth look at four particular
conflicts in the post-Soviet region i.e. Transnistria,
Nagorno Karabakh, Abkazia and South Ossetia. The main aim of the paper is to
identify the most suitable theoretical lens needed to look at these conflicts,
from the various international political theories available. The paper compares
three approaches that can provide a framework to understand these conflicts -
structural realism, critical theory and liberalism but argues that these
conflicts can be best understood under the realm of structural realism.
Key Words: Liberalism, Critical Theory, Structural
Realism, Frozen Conflicts, Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh, Abkazia and South Ossetia.
Introduction
In the current
geopolitical scenario, many countries suffer internal conflicts or are at war
with other countries. While many
conflicts are resolved in a short time frame there are some that have spanned
decades and hinder the development of the countries involved and even impact
the whole region. Most of the time all attempts to find solutions for these
conflicts fail and these conflicts go unresolved. Therefore, it is vital to
understand the nature of these conflicts and seek an explanation for this
phenomenon of “frozen” conflicts in light of relevant theories of international
relations.
After the
disintegration of Soviet Union, four serious conflicts appeared in the region
and although these conflicts are at the heart of the problems faced by the
newly formed nations there seems to be a stalemate. The countries involved neither
engaging in open warfare and in the absence of a solution on the table; these
conflicts can be termed ‘Frozen Conflicts’. The foremost conflicts that are
affecting the post-Soviet nations and are under discussion in this paper are Transnistrian in Moldova; Nagorno
Karabakh involving Azerbaijan and Armenia; and finally,
Abkazia and South Ossetia, which affect the territory
of Georgia.
This paper aims
to delve into the various theoretical approaches, which are the most relevant
for understanding the nature of these conflicts, and analyze how the
International Relations (IR) literature can help us develop a better
understanding of these issues. First, the paper assesses these conflicts in the
light of the Liberal Approach based on the works of Michael Doyle, Joseph S.
Nye and Robert O. Koehane. Secondly, the paper
attempts to determine the relevance of Critical Approach with the primary focus
on the works of Robert Cox, Andrew Linklater and Ken Booth. Lastly, the works
of Kenneth Waltz and Robert Gilpin are discussed to understand these conflicts
in the light of Structural Realism. The in-depth study of these three theories
will help determine the suitable theoretical lens and the most dominant theory,
which needs to be employed when understanding the reasons for the ‘frozen’
nature of these conflicts.
I argue that
Structural Realism provides us with the most suitable theoretical lenses. In
order to support my argument, I will look at the literature in order to see
which approaches claim to have the better explanation. Then I will list a set
of reasons why Structural Realism can be considered the dominant approach in
dealing with this topic.
Liberal Approach
Liberalism is
one of the major theory among the international relations theories but has its
critics especially in relation to the foreign affairs. However, before looking
at foreign affairs from the Liberal point of view one needs to consider the
main principles of the approach. Liberalism is founded on the ideas and
principle of the freedom of individuals.[1]
This freedom shapes as set of rights in threefold. Firstly, liberalism takes
the freedom from arbitrary authority, often called ‘negative freedom’. It
contains “freedom of conscience, a free press and free speech, equality under
the law, and the right to hold, and therefore to exchange, property without
fear of arbitrary seizure”.[2]
Besides the ‘negative rights’ liberalism promotes also some rights which are
called ‘positive freedom’. It contains social and economic rights such as equal
opportunity to get education, employment and health care. The third liberal
right, which guarantees the two other, is democratic participation or
representation. Although there is an ongoing debate even within the Liberal
scholars about how to reconcile the three sets of liberal rights, it is not in
the scope of this paper to go into the details of this debate.
Liberal scholars
argue that liberal states do not go to war with each other and in order to
support this idea they list statistical data. Michael Doyle in his 1983 article
presents statistical data about the liberal regimes and the creation of the ‘pacific
union’. Pacific union started in the 18th Century and continues in
particular part of the history according to the list. In contrast, Doyle argues
that although liberal scholars explain the pacification among the liberal states
they do not clarify why liberal states are peaceful only with the other liberal
states. Liberal states may be quite aggressive with non-liberal states. In this
regard, Doyle claims that the best lens is offered by Immanuel Kant in his work
titled “Toward Perpetual Peace”[3] to
untangle this impasse. In his work, Kant proposes three "definitive articles"
which can guarantee perpetual peace. “The First Definitive Article holds that
the civil constitution of the state must be republican. By republican Kant
means a political society that has solved the problem of combining moral
autonomy, individualism, and social order”.[4]
Taking the right to make decision as to the fate of the people away from the monarch
or any autocratic leader is critical for perpetual peace in a state. The Second
Definitive Article discusses ‘pacific union’, which will be created through
international law. Having liberal regimes in two states automatically will push
the states to the peace. The Third Definitive Article draws attention to the
cosmopolitan law. In this stage, citizens from both sides will not be bothered
when they cross the border because they will gradually recognize the similar
constitutional and international rules and laws.[5]
In his work,
Kant shows why perpetual peace can exist among the liberal states and argues
that
If the consent
of the citizens is required, in order to decide that war should be declared
(and in this constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural
than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing
for themselves all the calamities of war. Among the latter would be: having to
fight, having to pay the costs of war from their own resources, having to
painfully repair the devastation that war leaves behind, and, to fill up the
measure of evils, load themselves with a heavy national debt that would embitter
peace itself and that can never be liquidated on account of constant wars in
the future. But, on the other hand, in a constitution which is not republican,
and under which the subjects are not citizens, a declaration of war is the
easiest thing in the world to decide upon, because war does not require of the
ruler, who is the proprietor and not a member of the state, the least sacrifice
of the pleasure of his table, the chase, his country houses, his court functions,
and the like. He may therefore, resolve on war as on a pleasure party for the
most trivial reasons, and with perfect indifference leave the justification
which decency requires to the diplomatic corps that are ever ready to provide
it.[6]
According to
Kant, none of those three Definitive Articles alone is sufficient to have
perpetual peace but they can only be effective when applied together. However,
the attitude of these states will not be the same towards non-liberal regimes
and they may have aggressive relations with these states. The ‘peace’ will be
limited to the liberal states and only through supporting the liberal regimes
in other states; they can expand the ‘zone of peace’.
Apart from the Democratic
Peace Theory, it is beneficial to analyze work of Robert Keohane
and Joseph Nye as well in order to know if liberal approach is relevant in
understanding the frozen conflicts in
the post-Soviet region. In this regard, the article titled “Transnational
Relations and World Politics” and co-authored by the above-mentioned political
scientist is discussed here.[7] In
this article, the authors argue that in the field of international politics
very little attention has been paid to the importance of inter-societal
interactions. In order to fill this gap, Keohane and
Nye offer the concept of “transnational relations”. The main objection of the
authors here is the acceptance of states as the only actors in the
international relations.
Keohane and Nye use the
term “global interactions” for the movements of information, money, physical
objects, people, or other tangible or intangible items across states
boundaries. The authors emphasize that in global interactions the relations are
not simple but very complex. According to Keohane and
Nye a transnational interaction may not only involve governments, but non-governmental
actors must also play a significant role. “Thus, “transnational interactions”
is a term to describe the movement of tangible or intangible items across state
boundaries when at least one of the actors is not an agent of the government or
an inter-governmental organization.”[8]
In order answer “how
do transnational interactions affect interstate politics”, the authors suggest
five major effects of transnational interactions: the first one is attitude
changes. According to the authors, it means that the citizens of different
states simply interact face-to-face and these interactions may affect and alter
the perceptions of elite groups. The second effect of transnational
interactions on the interstate politics is the promotion of international
pluralism. Keohane and Nye claim that having link
between national interest groups in transnational structures push these groups
to establish international organizations in order to cooperate with each other.
The third one is dependence and interdependence often associated with international
transportations and finance. In this part, the writers argue that not only
liberal states involve dependence and interdependence but also totalitarian
regimes can be involved. For instance, if totalitarian states want to keep pace
scientifically, they must allow international journals in their states or they
must give permission to scientists to attend some conferences abroad. In this regard,
states may also depend on international organizations, especially if these organizations
provide goods, services, information, managerial skills, and religious
legitimacy etc. that they need. Another effect of transnational interactions on
the interstate politics is new instruments for influence. Among roughly
equal powers, both sides may take advantage of new instruments. However, this
may not be the case among unequal states; as transnational interactions may provide
additional leverage to the powerful states located at the center of
transnational networks and can put the weaker states into a disadvantageous position.
The fifth and the last effect of transnational interactions on the interstate
politics depends on the presence of international organizations as autonomous
or quasi-autonomous actors in world politics. Having their own private foreign
policy will not only affect the relations among states but the states will have
to develop particular relations with those international organizations. Hence,
the inter-relationships are very complex and often reciprocal, and cannot be
ignored.[9]
Assessing the frozen conflicts from Doyle’s point of
view in the frame of Kant’s work and the works of Keohane
and Nye one observes that the region is full of international organizations and
co-operations. After the collapse of Soviet Union fifteen independent states
emerged in the region. Along with independence, these countries also entered
into transition period - transition to democracy, transition to market economy
and to state/nation building.[10]
Moreover, new regional institutions were established in these countries to
cooperate with each other. However, the economic and political cooperation
remains limited only to the states which that have no conflict between
themselves.
We can give some
regional organizations in the post-Soviet region as examples from the point of
liberal approach. The first one is the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), which aims at being more than a purely symbolic organization, nominally
possessing coordinating powers in the realm of trade, finance, law making, and
security. Another one is The Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO), an intergovernmental military alliance. The third one is GUAM
Organization for Democracy and Economic Development. GUAM is a regional
organization including four
post-Soviet states: Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan,
and Moldova. The last and the most critical one is The Eurasian Economic
Union that aims for regional economic integration.[11]
Besides International
Organizations, there are some institutions in the post-Soviet region that focus
on the issue of the frozen conflicts.
OSCE Mission is a group within the OSCE that is trying to find a peaceful
solution between Georgia - South Ossetia; Georgia – Abkazia.
However, in the last seventeen years the Mission group has failed to reach a peaceful
solution for these conflicts. Another group is the OSCE Minsk group, which was solely
established to find a peaceful solution for the Nagorno
Karabkh conflict. Finally, for the Transnistrian conflict “5+2” which includes Moldova, Transnistria, Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE, plus USA and
the EU as external observers, was formed to find a relevant solution to the
conflict.[12]
None of these attempts at resolving the frozen
conflicts, have been able achieve any success and it is not expected that any
real solution for these conflicts would be found soon.
In this regard,
we can show successful projects such as Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline where Azerbaijan
and Georgia are co-operating with one another. The economic co-operation between
these two countries led to them supporting each other’s interests in
international arena as well. However, because of the frozen conflicts it has limited scope as it hinders relations with
certain countries. At this point, it can be argued that though it is possible
to observe liberal attempts in the region exactly as the Liberalist scholars
claim but this co-operation exists only among certain states in the region
despite all the states claiming to be liberal regimes. Of course, one can
question the legitimacy of the claim and it can be argued that these regimes
might not be fully liberal or outright authoritarian but it is also critical to
realize that fully liberal regimes can only exist in the region, if these
conflicts are resolved.
Critical
Approach
Critical Approach
is another International Relations theory that needs to be considered while investigating
the most relevant approach for understanding the frozen conflicts in post-Soviet region. In this regard, the paper
looks at the work of Robert W. Cox along with the work of Andrew Linklater’s
work and Ken Booth.
Robert Cox in
his article titled “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory”[13]
draws attention to the relations between the civil society, states and their
interactions with world order. According to Cox, traditional international
relations theory fails to explain world order. “Traditional international
relations theory maintains the distinctness of the two spheres, with foreign
policy appearing as the pure expression of state interests. Today, however,
state and civil society are so interpenetrated that the concepts have become
almost purely analytical (referring to difficult-to-define aspects of a complex
reality) and are only very vaguely and imprecisely indicative of distinct
spheres of activity.[14]
Cox in his article also criticizes the recent trend where some scholars undermine
the unity of states and claim that the interests of states are not unitary and
that the bureaucrats compete with each other. Another group of scholars undermines
the relative role of states in international arena by introducing the significance
of non-governmental organizations. However, Cox claims that the state should
remain the focus of international relations thinking as a singular concept: a
state was a state was a state. He points that “there has been little attempt
within the bounds of international relations theory to consider the
state/society complex as the basic entity of international relations.”[15]
Cox borrows from
the Marxist view to fill this gap by broadening and diversifying the notion of
state and, particularly, by amplifying its social dimensions. However, it does
not go very far towards exploring the actual or historical differences among
forms of state, or considering the implications of the differences for
international behavior.[16]
Examining Cox’s work in depth is not in the scope of this paper but the concept
of the social forces and their impact on the forms of states, is explored in
this paper. Cox takes on a historical perspective that tries to understand
transformation in historical structure in order to influence change of society.
He gives attention to these three notions, which are social forces, forms
of state and world order.[17]
Cox argues that each of these concepts has an impact on the other and because
of that, they are not static, but continue to change.
Andrew Linklater
is another scholar whose article titled “The Achievements of Critical Theory”[18] needs
to be discussed while seeking the most relevant approach to understand the frozen conflicts. In this article, Linklater
examines the Marxist interpretation of Critical Theory. His main aim is to
consider the achievements of Marxist theory, its shortcomings and the ways to
overcome these shortcomings through discourse ethics proposed by Habermas.
As a strand of
social theory and as an approach to international relations, Linklater argues
that critical theory has four main achievements. First, Critical theory takes
concern with positivism. It posits that positivism’s neutrality claims, in
facts, hides the problematic social arrangements. Second, critical theory
opposes the idea that existing structures of social world are immutable. It
examines the new forms of political community. Critical theory recognizes
constrains proposed by neorealism but it rejects political fate. Third, Critical
theory overcomes the shortcomings of Marxism. Critical theory emphasizes social
learning for emancipation rather than focusing on class power as a determinant
factor. Fourth and the final achievement of critical theory is the theory
foresees new post-sovereign form of political community through discourse
ethics.[19]
Linkater cites Cox’s argument;
theory is always for someone and for a purpose. Cox claims that there are two
kinds of theory: problem solving and critical theory. Problem solving theory
accepts and legitimizes the existing order, claiming that change is either impossible
or improbable. However, Critical theory searches for evidence of change.
Existing world order works to the advantage of the privileged groups while
neglecting marginal and subordinated groups.[20]
Critical theory
strongly opposes to immutability thesis. The first main criticism is that
immutability thesis fails to provide an adequate account of the relationship
between agency and structure. Critical theory criticizes neorealism that it
takes the structure as determinant for the behavior of the agent but Waltz also
recognizes that great powers enjoy a capacity to determine the functioning of
the system. Thus, to adopt Wendt, anarchy is what states make it. The second
main criticism is that immutability thesis sanctifies the existing power configuration,
which functions outside the legitimate effort to reform it.[21]
Linklater focuses
on the developments, which are weakening the bond between the citizens and the
state. He states that war has played in the creation of national communities
and strengthening of bond between citizens and the states. The obsolescence of
war leads to greater political representation and rights for national
minorities and migrant organization, which feel marginalized by dominant
conceptions of the community.[22]
Linklater concludes, “The reform of international relations has to begin with
transformation of state as a bounded moral community”.[23]
Ken Booth in his
article titled “Security and Emancipation”[24]
sets out from a criticism of traditional security studies and its state-centric
nature. Booth not only criticizes traditional approaches but also offers a view
of how to re-conceptualize security understanding of realism. It is a
production of modern and existing international system and reproduces this
system. He defines four problems in the international relations: Sovereignty,
states, the superpowers and important words such as “war”, “strategy”, or
“weapon”. He claims that these words became more complicated in the post-Cold
War period.[25]
He argues that only a process of emancipation can make the prospect of “true”
human security more likely. According to him, the realist understanding of
security as “power” and “order” can never lead to “true” security. Sovereign
state is not the main provider of security, but one of the main causes of
insecurity. To support his idea, Booth gives an example that during the last
hundred years far more people have been killed by their own governments than by
foreign armies. However, he claims that the true security “can only be achieved
by people and groups if they do not deprive other of it.”[26]
Looking at
International Relations from the Critical approach theory might broadens our
perspective but it is irrelevant in understanding the frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet region. However,
it was observed that though in the last years of the Soviet Union, civil
society was very effective but it could not affect the form of state in the
1930s. Only when Michael Gorbachev initiated the policy of perestroika
and glasnost did civil societies become key players and were able to
affect the form of state. After the disintegration of Soviet Union though few
civil societies exist but they have no effect on the states. In fact, it is observed
that the most influential civil society in Georgia could not change the
dynamics in that country. Although civil society played a significant role
during the Rose Revolution in Georgia, they could not have any serious impact
on the frozen conflicts. Moreover,
opposite to Linklater’s argument that “The obsolescence of war leads to greater
political representation and rights for national minorities and migrant
organization which feel marginalized by dominant conceptions of the community”
it is hard to see obsolescence of war in this region. Besides, Booth argued
that the concept of security has changed after the Cold War period but one
should take into account that this argument may have relevance for various
regions but not for entire of the world. In this regard, thanks to frozen conflicts the perception of war
is very vibrant in the region. Actually
the effect of social forces on the forms of states in the post-Soviet region is
very weak because of not having civil societies and it seems as long as the
conflicts in the region are frozen their weakness will be continue.
Structural Realism and Frozen Conflicts
Before analyzing
Structural Realism and its relevance for understanding frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet era, Classical realism will be
briefly discussed to show why it is not pertinent when discussing the frozen conflicts. Realism appeared as
one of the major perspective to study International Relations during the
interwar time and especially after the World War II it became a dominant
approach in the United States. Classical realism is generally dated from 1939 with
the publication of Edward Hallet Carr’s
The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Addition to Carr, Frederick Shuman (1933),
Harold Nicolson (1939), Reinhold Niebuhr (1940), Georg Schwarzenberger
(1941), Martin Weight (1946), Hans Morgenthau (1948), George F. Kennan (1951),
and Herbert Butterfield (1953) formed part of the realist canon.[27]
However, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Peace and War, written
by Hans Morgenthau, became the most prominent work among the other classical
realist works.
“According to
classical realism, states are continuously engaged in a struggle to increase
their capabilities because the desire for more power is rooted in the flawed of
human nature.”[28]
It points that not having equal power among states permits a statesperson to
seek more power and conflicts appear in the international arena because of
human desires. For classical realists, “international politics can be
characterized as evil: bad things happen because the people making foreign
policy are sometimes bad.”[29]
Hans Morgenthau claims "politics is governed by objective laws that have
their roots in human nature." Human nature is inherently flawed; therefore,
conflict occurs as a natural outcome of conflicting nations' search for power.
Morgenthau argues that since politics is governed by the objectivity of human
nature, a theory of international relations can be developed by placing oneself
in the position of the statesperson in order to predict political outcomes.[30]
The basic
principles of classical realism state that international relations are state
centric, states are the central actors in international politics rather than
individuals or international organizations. In addition, international political
system is anarchic and there is no supranational authority. The
actors in the international political system are unitary and rational as their
actions maximize their own self-interest and all states desire power so that
they can ensure their own self-preservation.
Analyzing frozen conflicts from the perspective of
classical realism does not give us satisfactory explanation. Although asymmetrical
relations exist between the opposing sides of the frozen conflicts, one cannot defeat the other. For example,
according to some claims, the total defense budget of Azerbaijan equals to
Armenia’s GDP[31]
but the stalemate between the two states subsists in case of Nagorno Karabakh issue. The same
impasse is observed in case of all these frozen
conflicts. Although there is power imbalance between the opposing sides of the
frozen conflicts, the conflict
remains unresolved as if the powers were balanced. It means that by looking at the
domestic policies of the states, the frozen conflicts cannot be explained and
they should be analyzed at international level.
In his book
“Theory of International Politics”[32]
Kenneth Waltz separates international theories into two groups according to
whether they are reductionist or systemic. Theories of international politics that
focus to the causes at the individual or national level are reductionist;
theories that conceive of causes at the international level are systemic. Waltz
mainly criticizes the scholars who seek to find outcomes in the unit level. He
calls them “reductionist” who tries to explain the outcomes by looking the
state level. Waltz warns that reductionist approach ignores constraints imposed
on state behavior by the international environment.
The book
essentially draws a very general framework for clearing up recurring patterns
of state behavior and state interaction in the international system. In order
to explain the outcomes in international politics Waltz puts the structure
at the center of international system. Two things are particularly significant
about the international system in Waltz’s notion of structure. Firstly, the
ordering principle of international system is anarchy. It means there is no authority
higher than main units (states) are in international system. Another principle
of the structure of international politics is the distribution of
capabilities across the units in the international system. Capabilities
and/or power varies significantly among states. Variations in capabilities/power
among states create structural constraints faced by the states
in international politics.
In this
scenario, Structural Realism is the most suitable international relations
theory for understanding frozen conflicts
in the post-Soviet period. It is observed that there is an endless arm race
between the conflicting sides and it is due to this reason that conflicts gain
balance or remain frozen. The paper presents the argument that “structure”
plays the balancing role between the conflicting sides in a frozen conflict. The question can be
raised whether it is limited to regional powers. On one hand, it is logical to
consider that it may be in the interest of the regional powers to keep these
conflicts frozen but on the other hand, we should take into account another
point that even the hegemonic power could not change the situation to suit its
interest when it even had enough capacity to do so. In order to solve conflicts
in post-Soviet region, international institutions have been established to find
customized solutions and deal individually with these conflicts but still there
is no solution and none seems to be on the horizon either.
At this point, Robert Gilpin’s
work titled “War and Change in World Politics”[33]
may help build a better understanding of the case. In his book, Gilpin gives
five assumptions to explain international political change:
“First, an international system
is stable (i.e., in a state of equilibrium) if no state believes it profitable
to attempt to change the system. Second, a state will attempt to change the
international system if the expected benefits exceed the expected costs (i.e.,
if there is an expected net gain). Third, a state will seek to change the
international system through territorial, political, and economic expansion
until the marginal costs of further change are equal to or greater than the
marginal benefits. Fourth, once equilibrium between the costs and benefits of further
change and expansion is reached, the tendency is for the economic costs of
maintaining the status quo to rise faster than the economic capacity to support
the status quo. Fifth, if the disequilibrium in the international system is not
resolved, then the system will be changed, and a new equilibrium reflecting the
redistribution of power will be established.”[34]
Following the
Gilpin’s explanations about international political change, it can be said that
current international political system is beneficial for big powers and
the main cause of frozen conflicts
appears due to the international political system. These conflicts did not
exist when international political system was bipolar but when the structure of
system changed after the cold war these conflicts came into existence and it
seems until there is no change of structure in the international political
system these conflicts will remain frozen.
Conclusion
Disintegration
of the Soviet Union led to the creation of four conflicts (Transnistria,
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh)
of very similar nature in the region. All these frozen conflicts emerged right after the collapse of the Soviet
Union and currently the probability of them getting resolved is next to
nothing. In order to resolve these
frozen conflicts, the international power
players i.e. United States, the Russian Federation and the European Union need
to get involved and play a pivotal role. However, it seems none of these
parties wants to thaw these frozen
conflicts. Hence, this paper argues that the very nature of the international
political system does not allow for the resolution of these conflicts. Only if
the structure of the international political system changes can these conflicts
be solved, otherwise they will remain in their current frozen state.
This paper looks
at four frozen conflicts that exist in the post-Soviet region and tries
to establish its relation with the international political system. In this
regard first, the paper briefly looked at the Liberal approach and the Critical
theory to determine whether they offered relevant explanation for these
conflicts. However, it was established that although these theories broaden our
horizons neither of them provide any significant explanation to comprehend the
nature of these conflicts. The paper after determining that Classical Realism is
deficient in explaining these frozen conflicts
puts forth a framework in light of structural realism to understand these
conflicts. After considering the above-mentioned three theories, the paper
concludes that the most relevant international relations theory for
understanding these frozen conflicts
is structural realism.
[1]Doyle, W.
Michael. (1983) “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy
and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, p.206
[2]Ibid., p.207
[3]Kant, Immanuel.
“Toward Perpetual Peace,” in Kant : Political Writings, second ed., H. Reiss
(Cambridge University Press, 1991)
[4]Doyle. (1983) p.225
[5]Ibid., p.227
[6]Immanuel Kant,
"Perpetual Peace" in The Enlightenment, ed. Peter Gay (New York: Simon
& Schuster, 1974), pp. 790-92.
[7]Robert, O. Keohane and Joseph, S. Nye, (1971), “Transnational
Relations and World Politics: An Introduction,” International Organization,
Vol.25, No.3
[8]Ibid., p.333
[9]Ibid., pp.337-342
[10]Kuzio,Taras. (2001) “Taras Kuzio (2001)
“Transition in Post-Communist States: Triple or Quadruple?” Politics Vol
21(3) pp. 168-177
[11]Eurasian Economic Union, http://www.eaeunion.org/?lang=en#about Accessed January 9, 2016.
[12]Socor, Vladimir. (2012) “A Failed Re-Start to 5+2
Negotiations on Transnistria,” Eurasia Daily
Monitor Vol. 9 Issue: 48
[13]Cox, Robert. (1981) “Social Forces, States and World Orders:
Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium - Journal of International Studies, DOI: 10.1177/03058298810100020501
[14]bid., p.127
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid., p.138
[18]Linklater, Anderw. (1996): “Achievements of Critical
Theory,” in international Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve Smith, Ken
Booth, Marysia Zalewski,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.279-300
[19]Ibid., pp.
279-281
[20]Ibid.
[21]Ibid., pp.282-284
[22]Ibid., p.288
[23]Ibid., p.295
[24]Booth, Ken.
(1991): “Security and Emancipation,” Cambridge University Press, Vol.
17, No. 4, pp. 313-326
[25]Ibid., p.313
[26]Ibid., p.319
[27]Elman, Colin and Jensen, A. Michael (2014): “Realism
Reader,” Routledge, New York
[28]Ibid., p.3
[29]Ibid.
[30]Hans J.
Morgenthau, (1978): “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace,”
Fifth Edition, Revised, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 4-15
[31]Nicola D.
Medico, “A Black Knight in the Eastern Neighbourhood?
Russia and EU Democracy Promotion in Armenia and Moldova,” EU Diplomacy Paper
(2014): 8, accessed January 11, 2016, https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/edp_7_2014_del_medico.pdf?download=1
[32]Waltz, N. Kenneth. (1979): “Theory of International
Politics,” Addison Wesley, New York
[33]Gilpin, Robert.
(1981): “War and Change in World Politics,” Cambridge University Press New York
[34]Ibid., pp.10-11
Bibliography
Booth,
Ken. (1991): “Security and Emancipation,” Cambridge University Press,
Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 313-326
Cox, Robert. (1981)
“Social
Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium - Journal of International Studies, DOI: 10.1177/03058298810100020501
Doyle,
W. Michael. (1983) “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy
and Public Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 3, p.206
Elman, Colin and
Jensen, A. Michael (2014): “Realism Reader,” Routledge, New York
Eurasian Economic
Union, http://www.eaeunion.org/?lang=en#about Accessed January 9, 2016
Gilpin, Robert. (1981): “War and Change in World
Politics,” Cambridge
University Press New York
Hans
J. Morgenthau, (1978): “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and
Peace,” Fifth Edition, Revised, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 4-15
Kant, Immanuel. “Toward Perpetual Peace,” in Kant:
Political Writings, second ed., H. Reiss (Cambridge University Press,
1991)
Keohane, Robert. O.
and Nye, S. Joseph. (1971), “Transnational
Relations and World Politics: An Introduction,” International Organization,
Vol.25, No.3
Kuzio,Taras. (2001) “Taras
Kuzio (2001) “Transition in Post-Communist States: Triple or Quadruple?” Politics
Vol 21(3) pp. 168-177
Linklater, Anderw.
(1996): “Achievements
of Critical Theory,” in international Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steve
Smith, Ken Booth, Marysia Zalewski,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.279-300
Nicola
D. Medico, “A Black Knight in the Eastern Neighbourhood?
Russia and EU Democracy Promotion in Armenia and Moldova,” EU Diplomacy Paper
(2014): 8, accessed January 11, 2016, https://www.coleurope.eu/system/files_force/research-paper/edp_7_2014_del_medico.pdf?download=1
Socor, Vladimir.
(2012) “A Failed Re-Start to 5+2 Negotiations on Transnistria,”
Eurasia Daily Monitor Vol. 9 Issue: 48
Waltz, N. Kenneth.
(1979): “Theory of International Politics,” Addison Wesley, New York
*Ibrahim Muradov - is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the Middle East Technical University
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES