Russian Foreign Policy and International Relations Theory by Christer Pursiainen

Author:Christer Pursiainen [Pursiainen, Christer]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: International Relations, Political Science, General
ISBN: 9781351902366
Google: hkErDwAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 35637913
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2017-07-05T00:00:00+00:00

Realists as Pessimists and Optimists

From Kaplan’s point of view, the answers to the second set of the test questions, concerning the impact of international institutions, can be elucidated from the discussion presented above. First, we noticed that international institutions in the form of concrete international organisations, or blocs, play a great part in Kaplan’s argumentation and, in fact, he develops his different international system models largely using these blocs as organising parts. Second, the very ‘rules’ of each international system can be interpreted as implicit, tacit, or non-formal institutions. Third, exactly how international institutions matter depends much on what kind of international system is in question. For instance, the loose bipolar system differs from the balance of power system in that the rules and norms are specialised. Different actors have different rules. Bloc actors (blocs) have different rules and norms from those of universal actors, bloc-members have different rules and norms from those of non-bloc members.

Furthermore, in his original study, Kaplan emphasises the importance of an organisational form of blocs: ‘The functioning of the loose bipolar system depends upon the organizational characteristics of the supranational blocs’.99 Nato represented for Kaplan a non-hierarchical bloc, the communist bloc represented a mixed hierarchical bloc, and a hierarchical bloc would be one without national boundaries. From this emphasis on the organisational differences of blocs it follows that mixed hierarchical or hierarchical bloc actors (such as the communist bloc and its members) possess the sort of essential rules which, according to Kaplan, characterise their behaviour as more aggressive than that of non-hierarchical bloc actors (Nato).

Despite the importance of these rules and institutions, Kaplan does not demonstrate that they have any causal power. An actor in the international system can always choose to behave differently. Thus, for instance, the existing rules of the balance of power system did not prevent Stalin from ignoring these rules when he felt powerful enough, nor did Gorbachev follow the rules of the loose bipolar system; otherwise this kind of system would not have collapsed peacefully, because according to the rules discussed above, blocs should tend to engage in major war rather than allowing a rival bloc to attain predominance.

This is an interesting aspect of Kaplan’s theory from the point of view of contemporary International Relations theory. Kaplan’s argumentation is based on realism’s premisses, and yet he raises the constructivist point that the international system is constituted by norms and rules which are either reproduced or produced by the practice of the actors. Thus, to the questions of whether Russia differs qualitatively from the Soviet Union with respect to institutions, norms and rules, or whether the contemporary international system differs from that of the Cold War period (in other words, do institutions matter or not?) one should reply that the basic functioning principle of states has not changed. It is therefore an empirical question; one should define what kind of international system the present one is, and what kind of essential rules should be followed within it, and then study whether Russia chooses to follow them or not.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.