霸权的衰落及其对后苏联地区主义的影响：在地区秩序的重塑中检验霸权稳定论

发布时间：2018-05-28 14:25

本文选题：霸权的衰落 + 后苏联区域主义　；参考：《吉林大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：苏联解体后的区域主义是一种新现象，抑或是区域主义的一种独特形式。之所以称其为“新”，是因为它采取了苏联解体后区域主义的形式。首先，它的独特性体现在后苏联区域主义中对应的区域格局在权力分配方面存在较大的差距，因为俄罗斯的经济，政治和军事能力都远远超过该地区其他国家的能力。此外，前苏联共和国解体后的大部分国家都有着共同的经济，环境，安全问题，这些问题也推动他们需要相互合作。这里有几个区域组织，但大部分都是俄国主办的，他们的目的是使前苏联解体后形成的国家融入共同的经济项目之中。然而，苏联解体后二十年的研究表明后苏联区域主义并没有真正意义上的整合好前苏联解体后的国家。其次，它之所以独特是因为主流的国际关系理论还不能完全解释苏联解体后区域主义的形成模式。新现实主义强调国家之间的权力分配，动态的权力政治和国际结构对于后苏联区域主义形式是十分适合的。然而，新现实主义认为区域主义作为一种对付外界强烈的威胁和挑战的形式，它的出现是在情理之中的。此外，它忽略了一些小国在其外交决策中的国内政治和利益及成本效益的考虑，特别是加入这样区域一体化的项目。新自由制度还不能完全提供苏联解体后地区主义的解释，因为它强调国与国之间共同存在的问题，以及彼此之间的互利和强依存性问题，并在各国合作的国际机构中提出优先级待遇问题。综上所述，前苏联解体后的国家都存在共同的问题，并拥有互利及高度集成的特点，但它并没有导致任何有效的区域机构或区域主义的形成。关于特定区域的建构必须建立在一定的区域意识和区域认同基础之上，其中每一个国家都起到相互照应、相互信任的作用。一个地区的这些特点可能是适合后苏联地区和前苏联共和国，因为他们仍然有一些“共性”，而且区域身份也作为其共享苏联过去的结果。然而，这些共性既没有将这些国家连在一起，也没有形成有效的区域机构。后苏联的区域主义，因此，是国际政治研究中一个奇特的个案研究，因为前苏联共和国并不是遵守国际关系的主要理论而建立国家的。因此，只有理论和方法相结合才能解释后苏联区域主义模式失败的原因。本文试图结合霸权稳定论、新现实主义在特定版本和小国的政治领导人的国内政治考虑等因素来解释后苏联区域主义的失败。并进一步指出，后苏联区域主义的失败是俄国区域霸权持续下降的表现。在冷战期间两个超级大国通过建立强有力的区域机构来维持自己的阵营的实力，也包括他们的盟友。苏联集体之所以能持续是因为成员国之间实力差距较大，而且苏联华沙条约组织和经互会来维持自己的区域体制的秩序。当苏联因为国内经济软弱而国力衰落时，区域体制的秩序被削弱并最终崩溃。冷战结束后虽然国际权力结构发生改变，苏联的继承国——俄罗斯仍保持其在前苏联共和国区域中的霸权地位。在苏联解体后的最初几年，俄罗斯作为这一地区的霸主并承认其对“近邻”的特殊责任，它率先提出建立区域体制秩序的倡议。例如，包括所有前苏联共和国的独立国家联合体（独联体）的成立就是由俄罗斯倡导的，并作为实现其地区霸权利益的手段。前苏联共和国的独立国寻求与区域霸主俄罗斯和平共处，希望获得特殊的奖励，特别是利于自身发展的经济援助。然而，俄罗斯日益恶化的经济危机和其每况愈下的形势为其建立有效的区域机构带来负面影响，并导致区域主义模式形成的失败。当区域霸主每况愈下时，小国应采取怎样的应对策略？前苏联共和国的独立国所采取的行为是回答这个问题很好的例子。当区域霸主每况愈下时，小国应寻求其他利益资源因为霸主已经没有能力维持区域体制秩序。因此，小国将寻求不同区域的权力，这样可以国内政治情况为他们提供必要的资金和其他生活必需品。这将导致“地缘政治多元化”的出现，即“到达”的地区，大国在这里的影响力不大。因此，该地区霸主实力的下降可能会导致霸主改变。首先，当缺乏经济盈余时，霸权的衰落是其主导状态绝对下降的结果，绝对和相对规模减弱霸主之间实力的比较。第二，跌幅可以是其他地区大国的影响力下降的霸主“到达”这一领域的结果，即使地区霸主的绝对规模是增加的。俄罗斯无力维持像独联体这样的区域机构，因此也就不能推动其像前苏联那样与欧盟，美国和中国建立合作战略。这种战略响应已经成为一种政策，不仅是那些已经不愿意加入后苏联区域机构的参与者，例如乌克兰，而且也包括那些对于后苏联区域合作一直充满热情的国家，，如哈萨克斯坦。因此，这些国家的战略响应表明和更强大的地区大国的合作形式将使后苏联地区出现“地缘政治多元化”现象。从欧盟，美国和中国曾经对前苏联共和国的政策可以看出，目前有一些地区大国，在后苏联地区，俄罗斯已不再是强大的地区霸主。因此，俄罗斯经历了两次霸权衰落的过程，第一次是在90年代初，它由于经济衰落而导致的绝对规模的减弱，第二次是当“地缘政治多元化”出现时，俄罗斯在后苏联地区的相对实力下降，尽管事实上，它的绝对权力比90年代初是增加了的。总之，笔者认为，俄罗斯地区霸权的衰落直接导致后苏联区域主义失败。俄罗斯不能像曾经的苏联共和国通过合作为其他地区的大国带去利益，也就引致“地缘政治多元化”的出现，因此，区域主义的形成更具复杂性。
[Abstract]:Regionalism after the disintegration of the Soviet Union is a new phenomenon or a unique form of regionalism. It is called "new" because it has taken the form of regionalism after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
First, its uniqueness is reflected in the large gap in the distribution of power in the regional pattern of the regionalism of the post Soviet Union, because the economic, political and military capabilities of Russia are far beyond the capabilities of other countries in the region. In addition, most of the countries after the disintegration of the former Soviet Republic have a common economy, environment, and security. There are several regional organizations, but most of them are hosted by Russia. Their aim is to integrate the countries of the former Soviet Union into a common economic project. However, twenty years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union showed that the Soviet regionalism was not really meaningful. The integration of the country after the disintegration of the former Soviet Union.
Secondly, it is unique because the mainstream theory of international relations can not fully explain the formation pattern of regionalism after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Neo realism emphasizes the distribution of power between countries. Dynamic power politics and international structure are suitable for the form of regionalism in the post Soviet Union. However, the Neo realism thinks that the regional owner is ten. The emergence of righteousness as a form of dealing with the strong threats and challenges of the outside world is justified. In addition, it ignores the domestic politics and interests and cost-effectiveness of some small countries in their diplomatic decision-making, especially in such a regional integration project. The new self imposed system can not fully provide the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The explanation, because it emphasizes the common existing problems between countries, and the mutual benefit and strong dependence of each other, and puts forward priority treatment in the international institutions of cooperation among countries. In summary, the countries of the former Soviet Union have common problems and have the characteristics of mutual benefit and high integration, but it does not There is the formation of any effective regional institutions or regionalism. The construction of a specific region must be based on a certain regional awareness and regional identity, of which each country plays the role of mutual care and mutual trust. These characteristics of a region may be suitable for the post Soviet and former Soviet republics. There are still some "commonalities" for them, and regional identity is the result of the past of the Soviet Union. However, these commonalities have neither linked these countries nor formed effective regional institutions. The regionalism of the post Soviet Union, therefore, is a peculiar case study of international political studies, because the former Soviet Republic and the Republic of Soviet Union Only by combining theory with method can we explain the failure of the Soviet Union's regionalism model.
This article tries to explain the failure of the Soviet regionalism in the light of the theory of hegemony stability and the internal political considerations of the political leaders of the small country and the new realism, and further points out that the failure of the regionalism in the post Soviet Union is the appearance of the continuous decline of the Russian Regional hegemony. During the cold war, the two superpowers were established. Strong regional institutions to maintain the strength of their camps, including their allies. The Soviet Union can continue because of the strength gap between the Member States, and the Soviet Warsaw Treaty Organization and the mutual association to maintain the order of its own regional system. The order of the system was weakened and eventually collapsed. After the end of the cold war, although the structure of the international power changed, the Soviet successor, Russia, remained its hegemonic position in the former Soviet Republic. In the first few years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia was the hegemony of the region and recognized its special responsibility for the "close neighbour". For example, the establishment of the independent state Federation (CIS) of all the former Soviet republics, for example, was initiated by Russia and was used as a means to achieve the hegemonic interests of its region. The independent state of the former Soviet Republic sought peaceful coexistence with the regional hegemonism of Russia, hoping to obtain special rewards, In particular, economic aid that is conducive to its own development. However, the worsening economic crisis in Russia and its deteriorating situation have brought negative effects on the establishment of effective regional institutions and led to the failure of the regionalism model.
When regional hegemony is deteriorating, what should a small country take? The action taken by the independent state of the former Soviet Republic is a good example to answer this question. When the regional hegemon goes from bad to worse, the small country should seek other benefits because the hegemon has no ability to maintain the regional system order. Therefore, the small countries will seek not. The power of the same region can provide them with the necessary funds and other necessities of life in the domestic political situation. This will lead to the emergence of "geopolitical diversification", that is, "arrive" in a region where great powers have little influence. Therefore, the downfall of the hegemonic power of the region may lead to a change of hegemony. First, the lack of economy. When the surplus is, the decline of hegemony is the result of the absolute decline in its dominant state, and the comparison between the absolute and relative size of the hegemonism is weakened. Second, the decline can be the result of the "arrival" of the hegemonic hegemony of other regional powers, even if the regional hegemonism is on an increase in size.
Russia is unable to maintain regional institutions such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, and therefore can not promote its cooperation strategy with the EU, the United States and China as the former Soviet Union. This strategic response has become a policy, not only the participants who are unwilling to join the post Soviet regional institutions, such as Ukraine, but also those that are in the same way. In the post Soviet Union, regional cooperation has been full of enthusiastic countries, such as Kazakhstan. Therefore, the strategic response of these countries shows that the cooperation form of the stronger regional powers will lead to the phenomenon of "geopolitical pluralism" in the post Soviet Union. Some regional powers, in the post Soviet region, Russia is no longer a powerful regional hegemon. Therefore, Russia has experienced two hegemonic declines, the first was the decline of the absolute scale caused by its economic decline in the early 90s, and the second was when the "geo governance diversification" appeared, Russia was in the post Soviet Union. Relative strength declined despite the fact that its absolute power increased in the early 90s.
In a word, the author believes that the decline of Russian hegemony directly leads to the failure of regionalism in the post Soviet Union. Russia can not take the interests of the former Soviet Republic through cooperation for other countries, and lead to the emergence of "geopolitical pluralism". Therefore, the formation of regionalism is more complex.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D80;D851.2

【相似文献】