Preview

Международная аналитика

Расширенный поиск

Обреченные на интерпретацию: Россия, НАТО и военно-политические кризисы постбиполярного миропорядка

https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-3-35-60

Полный текст:

Аннотация

В исследованиях российской внешней политики существует определенный парадокс. С одной стороны, присутствует общая тенденция, усилившаяся после 2014 г., рассматривать действия России как направленные на пересмотр существующего миропорядка, построенного странами Евро-Атлантического региона по окончании холодной войны. В частности, строятся теории о риске российского ревизионизма в разных регионах: от Северной Европы и Прибалтики до Центральной Азии. С другой стороны, не раз указывалось, что страна использует сходный со странами данного региона язык оправдания своих внешнеполитических шагов. Феномен, объясняющий этот парадокс, мы называем «игрой в интерпретацию». Примером того, как Россия вовлечена в игру в интерпретацию с Западом в сложившемся постбиполярном мире, послужит анализ интерпретации Россией нормы гуманитарных интервенций. Методологически работа опирается количественный и качественный анализ отобранных текстов, составленных из специализированных архивов и открытых информационных источников. На примере анализа российского дискурса во время участия страны в пятидневной войне (2008) автор показывает, как российское внешнеполитическое руководство воспроизводит сходные нарративные модели, к которым прибегали западные страны во время войны в Косове (1999). Иллюстрация феномена игры в интерпретацию на примере гуманитарного интервенционализма неслучайна. Зачастую в научной литературе он описывается как присущий исключительно Западу, а Россия рисуется как субъект, высказывающий либо существенную долю скепсиса по отношению к его использованию, либо как однозначный противник такого подхода в мировой политике.

Об авторе

Н. Я. Неклюдов
Институт международных исследований (ИМИ) МГИМО МИД России
Россия

Никита Яковлевич Неклюдов, соискатель, эксперт

пр-т Вернадского, 76., Москва, 119454



Список литературы

1. Acharya, Amitav. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.” International Organization 58, no. 02 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582024.

2. Acharya, Amitav. “The R2P and Norm Diffusion: Towards A Framework of Norm Circulation.” Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 4 (2013): 466–79. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00504006.

3. Adler, Emmanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. International Practices. International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511862373.

4. Allan, Bentley B., Srdjan Vucetic, and Ted Hopf. “The Distribution of Identity and the Future of International Order: China’s Hegemonic Prospects.” International Organization 72, no. 4 (2018): 839–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818318000267.

5. Allison, Roy. “The Russian Case for Military Intervention in Georgia: International Law, Norms and Political Calculation.” European Security 18, no. 2 (2009): 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830903468734.

6. Allison, Roy. “Russian ‘Deniable’ Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules.” International Affairs 90, no. 6 (2014): 1255–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12170.

7. Allison, Roy. “Russia and the Post-2014 International Legal Order: Revisionism and Realpolitik.” International Affairs 93, no. 3 (2017): 519–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix061.

8. Badescu, Cristina G., and Linnea Bergholm. “The Responsibility To Protect and the Conflict in Darfur: The Big Let-Down.” Security Dialogue 40, no. 3 (2009): 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010609336198.

9. Bannon, Alicia. “The Responsibility to Protect: The U.N. World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 5 (2006): 1157–65.

10. Bellamy, Alex J. “The Responsibility to Protect and the Problem of Military Intervention.” International Affairs 84, no. 4 (2008): 615–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00729.x.

11. Bellamy, Alex J. “The Responsibility to Protect—Five Years On.” Ethics & International Affairs 24, no. 2 (2010): 143–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00254.x.

12. Bellamy, Alex J., and Paul D. Williams. “The New Politics of Protection? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect.” International Affairs 87, no. 4 (2011): 825–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01006.x.

13. Bilder, Richard B., John Dugard, and Audie Klotz. “Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid.” The American Journal of International Law 91, no. 1 (1997): 198–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/2954165.

14. Black, Michael L. “The World Wide Web as Complex Data Set: Expanding the Digital Humanities into the Twentieth Century and Beyond through Internet Research.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 10, no. 1 (2016): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.3366/ijhac.2016.0162.

15. Booth, Ken, Tim Dunne, and Michael Cox, eds. How Might We Live? Global Ethics in the New Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

16. Borgen, Christopher J. “The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia.” Chicago Journal of International Law 10, no. 1 (2009): 1–33.

17. Bowker, Mike. “The War in Georgia and the Western Response.” Central Asian Survey 30, no. 2 (2011): 197– 211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634937.2011.570121.

18. Brooks, Stephen G. “Dueling Realisms.” International Organization 51, no. 3 (August 18, 1997): 445–77. doi:10.1162/002081897550429.

19. Braun, Aurel. “Tougher Sanctions Now: Putin? Delusional Quest for Empire.” World Aff airs 177, no. 2 (2014): 34–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43556200%0A.

20. Bulley, Dan. “The Politics of Ethical Foreign Policy: A Responsibility to Protect Whom?” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 441–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109350051.

21. Burgerman, Susan D. “Mobilizing Principles: The Role of Transnational Activists in Promoting Human Rights Principles.” Human Rights Quarterly 20, no. 4 (1998): 905–23.

22. Chandler, David. “Rhetoric without Responsibility: The Attraction of ‘Ethical’ Foreign Policy.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5, no. 3 (2003): 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00108.23.

23. Chandler, David. “R2P or Not R2P? More Statebuilding, Less Responsibility.” Global Responsibility to Protect 2, no. 1 (2010): 161–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/187598410X12602515137617.

24. Corell, Hans. “The United Nations and the Legal Community in Promotion of Human Rights.” Fordham International Law Journal 21, no. 2 (1997): 519–30.

25. Cunliff e, Philip. “The Doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ as a Practice of Political Exceptionalism.” European Journal of International Relations 23, no. 2 (2017): 466–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116654956.

26. Doty, Roxanne Lynn. “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (September 24, 1997): 365–92. doi:10.1177/1354066197003003004.

27. Dijk, Teun A. van. “Discourse Communication: A New Journal to Bridge Two Fields.” Discourse & Communication 1, no. 1 (2007): 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481306072182.

28. Dunne, Tim, and Jess Gifkins. “Libya and the State of Intervention.” Australian Journal of International Aff airs 65, no. 5 (2011): 515–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2011.613148.

29. Etzioni, Amitai. “Sovereignty as Responsibility.” Orbis 50, no. 1 (2006): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2005.10.006.

30. Fairclough, Norman. Critical Discourse Analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis The Critical Study of Language, Second Edition. London: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368.

31. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.

32. Finnemore, Martha. The Purpose of Intervention. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.

33. Finnemore, Martha. “Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention.” In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, edited by Peter Katzenstein, 153–85. Columbia University Press, 1996. http://users.metu.edu.tr/utuba/Finnemore.pdf.

34. Gee, James. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068.

35. Glanville, Luke. “The Antecedents of ‘Sovereignty as Responsibility.’” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 2 (2011): 233–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066109346889.

36. Glanville, Luke. “Does R2P Matter? Interpreting the Impact of a Norm.” Cooperation and Conflict 51, no. 2 (2016): 184–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836715612850.

37. Grono, Nick. “Briefing: Darfur: The International Community’s Failure to Protect.” African Affairs 421, no. 105 (2006): 621–31.

38. Hobson, Christopher. “Responding to Failure: The Responsibility to Protect after Libya.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44, no. 3 (2016): 433–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816640607.

39. Hopf, Ted. “Change in International Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 24, no. 3 (September 2, 2018): 687–711. doi:10.1177/1354066117718041.

40. Ignatieff , Michael. “Human Rights: The Midlife Crisis.” New York Review of Books 20, (1999): 58–62.

41. Ingebritsen, Christine. “Norm Entrepreneurs.” Cooperation and Conflict 37, no. 1 (2002): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836702037001689.

42. Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States. Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1993.

43. Jones, Bruce D. “Libya and the Responsibilities of Power.” Survival 53, no. 3 (2011): 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2011.586188.

44. Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise Phillips. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2002. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871.

45. Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

46. Kaufmann, Chaim D., and Robert A. Pape. “Explaining Costly International Moral Action: Britain’s Sixty-Year Campaign Against the Atlantic Slave Trade.” International Organization 53, no. 4 (1999): 631–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899551020.

47. Keck, Margaret E, and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

48. Khudaykulova, Alexandra V. “Conflict Management in the New Century.” International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy 14, no. 4 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2016.14.4.47.5.

49. Krasner, Stephen D. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

50. Krasner, Stephen D. “Abiding Sovereignty.” International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (July 23, 2001): 229–51. doi:10.1177/0192512101223002.

51. Neumann, Iver B. “Russia’s Standing as a Great Power, 1492–1815.” In Russia’s European Choice, edited by Ted Hopf, 11–34.

52. New York: Palgrave, 2008A. Neumann, Iver B. “Russia as a Great Power, 1815– 2007.” Journal of International Relations and Development 11, no. 2. (2008B):128–51.

53. Neumann, Iver B., and Vincent Pouliot. “Untimely Russia: Hysteresis in Russian–Western Relations Over the Past Millennium.” Security Studies 20, no. 1 (2011):105–37.

54. Kuperman, Alan J. “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO’s Libya Campaign.” International Security 38, no. 1 (2013): 105–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00126.

55. Laruelle, Marlene. Russian Nationalism, Foreign Policy and Identity Debates in Putin’s Russia New Ideological Patterns after the Orange Revolution. CA: Ibidem Press, 2012. http://cup.columbia.edu/book/russiannationalism-foreign-policy-and-identity-debates-inputins-russia/9783838203256.

56. Leeuwen, Theo Van. “The Representation of Social Actors.” In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, 32–70.

57. New York: Routledge, 1995. Leeuwen, Theo Van. “The Visual Representation Of Social Actors.” In Discourse and Practice, 136–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.003.0008.

58. Luck, Edward C. “The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade.” Global Responsibility to Protect 3, no. 4 (2011): 387–99. https://doi.org/10.1163/187598411X603025.

59. Mikhelidze, Nona. “After the 2008 Russia-Georgia War: Implications for the Wider Caucasus.” The International Spectator 44, no. 3 (2009): 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932720903148807.

60. Mills, Kurt. “Reconstructing Sovereignty.” In Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order, 9–53. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230373556_2.

61. Morris, Justin. “Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum.” International Aff airs 89, no. 5 (2013): 1265–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12071.

62. Mutua, Makau W. “The Ideology of Human Rights.” Virginia Journal of International Law 36, no. 3 (1996): 589–657.

63. Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine: Revived in Libya, Buried in Syria.” Insight Turkey 15, no. 2 (2013): 57–67.

64. Orford, Anne. Reading Humanitarian Intervention Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2003.

65. Paris, Roland. “The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Intervention.” International Peacekeeping 21, no. 5 (2014): 569–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2014.963322.

66. Posner, Michael. “Foreword: Human Rights and Non-Governmental Organizations on the Eve of the Next Century.” Fordham Law Review 66, no. 2 (1997): 627–30.

67. Price, Richard. “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines.” International Organization 52, no. 3 (1998): 613–44. Accessed November 13, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2601403.

68. Pouliot, Vincent. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62, no. 2 (2008): 257–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090.

69. Pouliot, Vincent. International Security in Practice. International Security in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676185.

70. Pouliot, Vincent, and Jérémie Cornut. “Practice Theory and the Study of Diplomacy: A Research Agenda.” Cooperation and Confl ict 50, no. 3 (September 13, 2015): 297–315. doi:10.1177/0010836715574913.

71. Quinton-Brown, Patrick. “Mapping Dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and Its State Critics.” Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 3 (2013): 260–82. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X-00503003.

72. Rosencrance, Richard. Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. London: Basic Books, 1987.

73. Ruggie, John Gerard. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 855–85. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550770.

74. Sakwa, Richard. “Dualism at Home and Abroad: Russian Foreign Policy Neo-Revisionism and Bicontinentalism.” In Russia’s Foreign Policy, 65–79.

75. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015A. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137468888_5.

76. Sakwa, Richard. “Power, Politics and Confrontation in Eurasia.” Edited by Roger E. Kanet and Matthew Sussex. Power, Politics and Confrontation in Eurasia: Foreign Policy in a Contested Region. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015B. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-52367-9.

77. Smith, Karen, and Margot Light. Ethics and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Stedman, Stephen J. “UN Transformation in an Era of Soft Balancing.” International Aff airs 83, no. 5 (2007): 933– 44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00663.x.

78. Stefan, Cristina G. “On Non-Western Norm Shapers: Brazil and the Responsibility While Protecting.” European Journal of International Security 2, no. 1 (2017): 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2016.18.

79. Tang Abomo, Paul. “The Responsibility to Protect: The History of a Growing Norm.” In R2P and the US Intervention in Libya, 7–38. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78831-9_2.

80. Tannenwald, Nina. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use.” International Organization 53, no. 3 (1999): 433–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899550959.

81. Thakur, Ramesh, and Thomas Weiss. “R2P: From Idea to Norm—and Action?” Global Responsibility to Protect 1, no. 1 (2009): 22–53. https://doi.org/10.1163/187598409X405460.

82. Tuathail (Gerard Toal), Gearóid Ó. “Russia’s Kosovo: A Critical Geopolitics of the August 2008 War over South Ossetia.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 49, no. 6 (2008): 670–705. https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216 .49.6.670.

83. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1979. Weiss, Thomas G. “Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action.” Ethics & International Aff airs 13 (March, 1999): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1999.tb00322.x.

84. Weldes, Jutta. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. University of Minnesota Press, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2001.28.3.714.

85. Welsh, Jenifer. “The Responsibility to Protect: Dilemmas of a New Norm.” Current History 111, no. 748 (2012): 291–98.

86. Welsh, Jennifer. “Civilian Protection in Libya: Putting Coercion and Controversy Back into RtoP.” Ethics & International Aff airs 25, no. 3 (2011): 255–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679411000207.

87. Welsh, Jennifer M. “Norm Contestation and the Responsibility to Protect.” Global Responsibility to Protect 5, no. 4 (2013): 365–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875984X00504002.

88. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1999. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612183.

89. Williams, Paul D., and Alex J. Bellamy. “Principles, Politics, and Prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Use of Military Force.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 18, no. 3 (2012): 273–97. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01803003.

90. Yost, David S. “The Budapest Memorandum and Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine.” International Affairs 91, no. 3 (2015): 505–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12279.

91. Zähringer, Natalie. “Norm Evolution within and across the African Union and the United Nations: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a Contested Norm.” South African Journal of International Affairs 20, no. 2 (2013): 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2013.811336.

92. Zimmermann, Lisbeth. “Same Same or Diff erent? Norm Diff usion Between Resistance, Compliance, and Localization in Post-Confl ict States.” International Studies Perspectives 17, no. 1 (2016): 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12080.

93. Фомин, И.В. Возможности Структурного Исследования Образов в Политических Дискурсах // Политическая Наука. –2012. – № 2 – С. 237–50.

94. Фомин, И.В. Образы Южной Осетии и Косова в Российском Внешнеполитическом Дискурсе // Полития. Анализ. Хроника. Прогноз. – 2014. – Том. 72, №1. – С. 128–43.


Для цитирования:


Неклюдов Н.Я. Обреченные на интерпретацию: Россия, НАТО и военно-политические кризисы постбиполярного миропорядка. Международная аналитика. 2020;11(3):35-60. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-3-35-60

For citation:


Neklyudov N.Ya. Bound to Interpret: Russia, NATO, and the Military-Political Crises in the Post-Cold War Order. Journal of International Analytics. 2020;11(3):35-60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-3-35-60

Просмотров: 408


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2587-8476 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9633 (Online)