Международная иерархия и функциональная дифференциация государств: результаты экспертного опроса

Статья фокусируется на изучении международной иерархии с применением метода экспертного опроса. Представлен краткий обзор литературы по двум основным подходам к изучению иерархии в международных отношениях: «иерархии авторитета» и «иерархии державного (властного) статуса». Демонстрируется, что существует разрыв между фундаментальными и прикладными исследованиями статуса. В то время как фундаментальные работы постоянно подчёркивают социальный характер международного статуса, исследования отдельных случаев зачастую опираются на исключительно материальные показатели национального потенциала. В связи со стремительными изменениями положения государств в международной иерархии возникает необходимость сформулировать более детальный и целостный подход. Авторы предлагают пересмотреть теорию международной иерархии на основе онтологии Никласа Лумана и его теории дифференциации. В статье описаны процессы сегментационной, стратификационной и функциональной дифференциации международного общества. Стратификационной дифференциации соответствует возникновение международной иерархии государств, а функциональной — появление международной специализации. Авторы утверждают, что функциональные роли государств и их положение в международной иерархии взаимосвязаны. Для подтверждения данного тезиса используется корреляционный анализ. Иерархия функциональных ролей понимается в терминах «иерархии авторитета». В статье представлены три важных для последующих исследований вывода. Во-первых, 26 государств охарактеризованы экспертами с точки зрения их принадлежности к одной из категорий державности (сверхдержава, великая держава, средняя держава, малая держава), для них рассчитан индекс державности. Во-вторых, представлены мнения экспертов о том, какие критерии державности важны для прикладных исследований (включая размер экономики, военную мощь, международный престиж, уровень автономии и т.д.). В-третьих, сформулирован новый теоретический подход, который связывает положение государства в международной иерархии и его функциональные роли. Кроме того, также рассчитаны на основе ответов экспертов индексы ролей, предоставления общественных благ и ревизионизма для 26 стран мира.

1. Acharya A., Buzan B. 2010. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. London and New York: Routledge. 242 p.

2. Albert M. 2016. A Theory of World Politics. Cambridge University Press. 254 p.

3. Albert M., Buzan B. 2011. Securitization, sectors and functional differentiation. Security dialogue. 42(4-5). P. 413-425. DOI: 10.1177/0967010611418710

4. Artyushkin V.F., Kazantzev A.A., Sergeev VM 2021. Balance of Power Between the G-20 States: Analysis with Multidimensional Scaling Method. Polis. Political Studies. (2). P. 125-138. DOI:10.17976/jpps/2021.02.09 (In Russian)

5. Axelrod R., Keohane R.O. 1985. Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics. 38(1). P. 226-254. DOI: 10.2307/2010357

6. Barnett M., Duvall R. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization. 59(1). P. 39-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050010

7. Beckley M. 2018. The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. 43(2). DOI: 10.1162/isec_a_00328

8. Bially-Mattern J., Zarakol A. 2016. Hierarchies in World Politics. International Organization. 70(3). DOI: 10.1017/S0020818316000126

9. Bijan Z. 2005. China's peaceful rise to great-power status. Foreign Affairs. 84(5). P. 18-24. DOI: 10.2307/20031702

10. Bratersky M., Skriba A., Sapogova A. 2021. The Struggle for Recognition or Enhancement of Status: Conditions for the Stability and Development of Unrecognized States Using the Example of Eurasia. 16(3). DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-09 (In Russian)

11. Bull H. 1981. Hobbes and the International Anarchy. Social Research. P. 717-738.

12. Bull H. 1995. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan Press Ltd. 329 p.

13. Buzan B. 2021. Russia in the Post-Cold War International Order. Russia in Global Affairs. 19(4). P. 22-35. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2021-19-4-22-35

14. Buzan B., Albert M. 2010. Differentiation: a Sociological Approach to International Relations Theory. European journal of international relations. 16(3). P. 315-337. DOI: 10.1177/1354066109350064

15. Carr A. 2014. Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systemic Impact Approach. Australian Journal of International Affairs. 68(1). P. 70-84. DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2013.840264

16. Chapnick A. 1999. The Middle Power. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 7(2). P. 73-82, DOI: 10.1080/11926422.1999.9673212

17. Clark I. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooley A. 2003. Thinking rationally about hierarchy and global governance. Review of International Political Economy. 10(4). P. 672-684. DOI: 10.1080/09692290310001601939 Cooley A., Nexon D. 2020. Exit from Hegemony: the Unraveling of the American Global Order. New York: Oxford University Press. 281 p.

18. Cooper A.F., Higgott R.A., Nossal K.R. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: Ubc Press. 1993. 248 p.

19. Cox R.W. 1989. Middlepowermanship, Japan, and future world order. International Journal. 44(4). P. 823-862.

20. Degterev D.A., Butorov A.S. 2018. International Status of Post-Soviet Countries: Traditional and Relational Approaches to Hierarchy Assessment. International Relations. (4). P. 95103. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0641.2018.4.28233 (In Russian)

21. Diedenhofen B., Musch J. 2015. cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations. PLOS ONE. 10(4). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121945

22. Donnelly J. 2006. Sovereign inequalities and hierarchy in anarchy: American power and international society. European Journal of International Relations. 12(2). P. 139-170. DOI: 10.1177/1354066106064505

23. Donnelly J. 2015. The discourse of anarchy in IR. International Theory. 7(3). P. 393-425. DOI: 10.1017/S1752971915000111

24. Duque M.G. 2018. Recognizing International Status: A Relational Approach. International Studies Quarterly. 62(3). P. 577-592. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqy001

25. Dutkiewicz P., Casier T., Scholte J.A. 2020. Hegemony and World Order. New York: Routledge. 276 P. DOI: 10.4324/9781003037231

26. Escudé C. 1998. An Introduction to Peripheral Realism and its Implications for the Interstate System. In: Neuman S. (ed.) International Relations Theory and the Third World. Basingstoke: Macmillan. P. 55–75.

27. Escudé C. 2012. El realismo periférico (RP) y su relevancia teórica ante el ascenso de China. Desarrollo Económico: Revista de Ciencias Sociales. 51(204). P. 529-542.

28. Fehl C., Freistein K. 2020. Organising Global Stratification: How International Organisations (Re)Produce Inequalities in International Society. Global Society. 34(3). P. 285-303. DOI: 10.1080/13600826.2020.1739627

29. Gecelovsky P. 2009. Constructing a Middle Power: Ideas and Canadian Foreign Policy. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal. 15(1). P. 77-93. DOI: 10.1080/11926422.2009.9673483

30. Germain R. 2020. Global Hegemony From a Longue Durée Perspective: The Dollar and the World Economy. In: P. Dutkiewicz, T. Casier, J.A. Scholte (eds.) Hegemony and World Order: Reimagining Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge. P. 118-133. DOI: 10.4324/9781003037231.

31. Glazebrook G.D. 1947. The middle powers in the United Nations system. International Organization. 1(2). P. 307-318.

32. Gorelskiy I.E., Mironyuk M.G. 2019. Climbing up the Status Ladder: an Experiment in Empirical Research of Relation Between Status of a State in the System of International Relations and State Capacity. Political science (RU). (3). P. 140–174. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.03.06 (In Russian)

33. Holbraad C. 1984. Middle Powers in International Politics. London: Macmillan Press. 233 p.

34. Ikenberry J., Nexon D.H. 2019. Hegemony Studies 3.0: The Dynamics of Hegemonic Orders. Security Studies. 28(3). P. 395-421. DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2019.1604981

35. Jayne D. 1927. The Classification of Diplomatic Agents The American Journal of International Law. 21(4). P. 737-742

36. Kaiser K. 1968. The interaction of regional subsystems: some preliminary notes on recurrent patterns and the role of superpowers. World politics. 21(1). P. 84-107. DOI: 10.2307/2009747

37. Keohane R.O. 1969. Lilliputians' dilemmas: small states in international politics. International Organization. 23(2). P. 291-310. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830003160X

38. Koenig-Archibugi M. 2013. International institutions in a functionally differentiated world society. In: M. Albert, B. Buzan, M. Zürn (eds). Bringing Sociology to International Relations: World Politics as Differentiation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 182-204.

39. Komleva N.A. 2010. Geopolitical Status of the State: Essence & Classification. Geopolitika y bezopasnost’ [Geopolitics and Security]. (1). P. 23-28. (In Russian)

40. Lake DA 1996. Anarchy, hierarchy, and the variety of international relations. International Organization. 50(1). P. 1-33. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830000165X

41. Landis J.R., Koch, G.G. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1). P. 159-174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310

42. Linklater A. 2016. The ‘Standard of Civilization’ in World Politics. Human Figurations. 5(2). Linklater A. 2021. The Idea of Civilization and the Making of the Global Order. Bristol: Bristol University Press. 323 p.

43. Luhmann N. 1977. Differentiation of Society. The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 2(1). P. 29-53.

44. Luhmann N. 1982. The Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press. 482 p.

45. Melville A.Yu., Mironyuk M.G. 2020. “Political Atlas of the Modern World” Revisited. Polis. Political Studies. (6). P. 41-61. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.06.04 (In Russian)

46. Milner H. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: a Critique. Review of International Studies. 17(1). P. 67-85. DOI: 10.1017/S026021050011232X Montgomery E., 2016. In the Hegemon's Shadow. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 216 p.

47. Nayar B.R., Paul T.V. 2003. India in the World Order: Seeking for a Major Power Status. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 270 p.

48. Nye J. 1990. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books. 307 p.

49. Organski A.F.K. 1958. World Politics. New York: Brooklyn College. 461 p.

50. Osgood R., Tucker R. 1967. Force, Order, and Justice. Baltimore, Maryland and London:The John Hopkins Press. 387 p.

51. Oye K. A. 1985. Explaining cooperation under anarchy: Hypotheses and strategies. World politics. 38(1). P. 1-24. DOI: 10.2307/2010349

52. Paul T.V., Larson D.W., Wohlforth W.C. 2014. Status in World Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 320 p.

53. Powell R. 1994. Anarchy in International Relations Theory: the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate. International Organization. 48(2). P. 313-344. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300028204 Renshon J. 2017. Fighting for Status Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton University Press. 328 p. DOI: 10.1515/9781400885343

54. Royal K. D. 2019. Survey research methods: A guide for creating post-stratification weights to correct for sample bias. Education in the Health Professions. 2(1). P. 48-50. DOI: 10.4103/EHP. EHP_8_19

55. Safranchuk I., Zhornist V., Nesmashnyi A. 2021. Hegemony and World Order: An Overview of the Concept “Hegemony as Complexity”. International Organisations Research Journal. 16(1). P. 172–183. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2021-01-09 (In Russian).

56. Schmidt B. 2020. Hegemony: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis and Its Application to the Debate on American Hegemony. In: P. Dutkiewicz, T. Casier, J.A. Scholte (eds.) Hegemony and World Order: Reimagining Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge. P. 32-47. Available at: DOI: 10.4324/9781003037231

57. Schweller R.L., Pu X. 2011. After unipolarity: China's visions of international order in an era of US decline. International security, 36(1). P. 41-72. DOI: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00044

58. Shakleina T.A. 2011. Great Powers in Global and Regional Politics. International trends. 9(2). P. 29-39. (In Russian)

59. Shettima A.G., Tar UA 2008. Farmer-pastoralist conflict in West Africa: Exploring the causes and consequences. Information, society and justice journal. 1(2). P. 163-184.

60. Singer J.D., Bremer S., Stuckey J. 1972. Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965. In: Bruce Russett (ed.) Peace, War, and Numbers. Beverly Hills: Sage. P. 19-48.

61. Singer J.D., Small M. 1966. The Composition and Status Ordering of the International System: 1815-1940. World Politics. 18(2). P. 236-282. DOI: 10.2307/2009697

62. Steenbergen M.R., Marks G. 2017. Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research. 46(3). P. 347-366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00694.x.

63. Steenbergen M.R., Marks G. 2017. Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research. 46 (3). P. 347-366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00694.x.

64. Sucu A., Safranchuk I., Nesmashnyi A., Iskandarov Q. 2021. Transformation of Middle Powers with the Decline of World Hegemony: The Case of Turkey. Strategic Analysis. 45(4). P. 307-320. DOI: 10.1080/09700161.2021.1950409

65. Teo S. 2021. Toward a Differentiation-Based Framework for Middle Power Behavior. International Theory. DOI:10.1017/S1752971920000688

66. Thompson W.R. 2011. The United States as Global Leader, Global Power, and Status-Consistent Power? In: T.J. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K.A. Grant, R.G. Baird (eds.) Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politics. P.27-53. DOI: 10.1057/9780230119314_2

67. Vandenbosch A. 1964. The Small States in International Politics and Organization. The Journal of Politics. 26(2). 293-312. DOI: 10.2307/2127598

68. Vayrynen R. 1971. On the Definition and Measurement of Small Power Status. Cooperation and Conflict. 6(1). 91-102 p. DOI: 10.1177/001083677100600109

69. Vital D. 1967. The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 198 p.

70. Volynchuk A.B., Volynchuk Ya.A. 2018. The Geopolitical Status of the State: the Theoretical Basis of the Scientific Category, Тhe Territory of New Opportunities. The Herald of Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service. 10(1). P. 57–67. DOI: 10.24866/VVSU/20733984/2018-1/57-67 (In Russian)

71. Walker R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 233 p.

72. Wallace M.D. 1971. Power, Status, and International War. Journal of Peace Research. 8(1). P. 23-35.

73. Waltz K.N. 1967. International structure, national force, and the balance of world power. Journal of International Affairs. 21(2). P. 215-231.

74. Waltz K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 251 p.

75. Waltz K.N. 2001. Man State and War. New York: Columbia University Press. 263 p. Wendt A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization. 46(2). P. 391-425. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300027764

76. Wight M. 1960. Why is there no International Theory? International relations. 2(1). P. 3548.

77. Wohlforth W.C. 2021. How (Not) to Evaluate US Decline and the Emerging Great Power Rivalry. Journal of International Analytics. 12(3). P. 12–18. DOI: 10.46272/2587-8476-2021-123-12-18

78. Wohlforth W.C., De Carvalho B., Leira H., Neumann I.B. 2018. Moral Authority And Status In International Relations: Good States And The Social Dimension Of Status Seeking. Review of International Studies. 44(3). P. 526-546. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210517000560

79. Xuetong Y. 2006. The Rise of China and its Power Status. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 1(1). P. 5–33. DOI: 10.1093/cjip/pol00

80. Zarakol A. 2017. Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 320 p.

81. Zhornist V.M., Nesmashnyi A.D., Kharkevich M.V., Safranchuk I.A. 2022. State Differentiation by Climate Ambition: Implications for World Politics. International Organisations Research Journal. In print.