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

5. Barnett M., Duvall R. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization. 59(1). P. 39-75. DOI: 0.1017/S0020818305050010

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

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

8. Bijan Z. 2005. China's Peaceful Rise to Great-power Status. Foreign Affairs. 84(5). P. 18-24. DOI: 10.2307/20031702

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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. Clark I. 2005. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cooley A. 2003. Thinking Rtionally 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.

16. Cooper A.F., Higgott R.A., Nossal K.R. 1993. Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and

17. Canada in a Changing World Order. Vancouver: Ubc Press. 1993. 248 p.

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Donnelly J. 2015. The Discourse of Anarchy in IR. International Theory. 7(3). P. 393-425. DOI: 10.1017/S1752971915000111

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

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

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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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

28. Germain R. 2020. Global Hegemony from a Longue Durée Perspective: The Dollar and the World Economy. 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.

29. Glazebrook G.D. 1947. The Middle Powers in the United Nations System. International Organization. 1(2). P. 307-318.

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

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. Keohane R.O. 1969. Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization. 23(2). P. 291-310. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830003160X

35. Koenig-Archibugi M. 2013. International Institutions in a Functionally Differentiated World Society. M. Albert, B. Buzan, M. Zürn (eds). Bringing Sociology to International Relations: World Politics as Differentiation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 182-204.

36. Lake DA 1996. Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations. International Organization. 50(1). P. 1-33. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830000165X

37. 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

38. 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.

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

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

41. Milner H. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: a Critique.

42. 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.

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

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

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

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

47. Oye K. A. 1985. Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies. World politics. 38(1). P. 1-24. DOI: 10.2307/2010349

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

49. 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

50. 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

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

52. 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

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

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

55. 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

56. 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

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

58. Thompson W.R. 2011. The United States as Global Leader, Global Power, and Status-Consistent Power? 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

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

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

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

62. 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)

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

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

65. Waltz K.N. 1967. International Structure, National Fforce, and the Balance of World Power. Journal of International Affairs. 21(2). P. 215-231.

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

67. 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

68. Wight M. 1960. Why is There no International Theory? International relations. 2(1). P. 35-48.

69. 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: 10.46272/2587-8476-2021-12-3-12-18

70. 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

71. 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

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

73. 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.

74. 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. No2. P. 125-138. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.02.09 (In Russian)

75. 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. International Organisations Reseearch Journal. 16(3). DOI: 10.17323/1996-78452021-03-09 (In Russian)

76. Degterev D.A., Butorov A.S. 2018. International Status of Post-Soviet Countries: Traditional and Relational Approaches to Hierarchy Assessment. International Relations. No4. P. 95103. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0641.2018.4.28233 (In Russian)

77. 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). No3. P. 140–174. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2019.03.06 (In Russian)

78. Komleva N.A. 2010. Geopolitical Status of the State: Essence & Classification. Geopolitika y bezopasnost’ [Geopolitics and Security]. No1. P. 23-28. (In Russian)

79. Melville A.Yu., Mironyuk M.G. 2020. “Political Atlas of the Modern World” Revisited. Polis. Political Studies. No6. P. 41-61. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.06.04 (In Russian)

80. 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).

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