Power dynamics at the global-regional nexus: examining structural constraints on regional conflict management (original) (raw)
Related papers
Global Policy, 2019
The intensifying rivalry between the leading global powers (the United States and the European Union) on one hand, and the aspiring nations (such as China, Russia, India, Turkey, and others) on the other, creates additional challenges to conflict resolution on the regional scale. The global and aspiring powers often seek to use these conflicts to sap their opponents’ resources, discredit their commitments and undermine resolve. As a result, most conflicts in post‐Soviet Eurasia and some in the Middle East (Syria) and Asia (disputes over China's maritime claims) become ‘frozen’ or intractable and defy resolution. Existing multilateral alliances and blocs across the conflict ridden regions are engaged in the struggle for members and appear incapable of concerted conflict resolution policies. What is needed to address the intensifying proxy conflict problem is a set of multilateral permanent negotiation fora bringing together the leading global powers and aspiring nations. Despite the manifold challenges to such scheme, the contours of a deal that can be reached within such fora is clear: status elevation for the aspiring nations in return for their good faith engagement with the leading global powers in conflict resolution.
2024
Objective: This paper looks into how regionalism is changing and how it affects international diplomacy. It assesses the efficacy of regional and international efforts to uphold global peace and security and tries to ascertain whether the current strains on the planet could spark a third world war or another Cold War. Method: Both constructivism and realism are used in the study to comprehend regionalism and international diplomacy. Constructivism concentrates on identities and conventions, whereas realism studies power relationships and national interests. The research combines case studies from the past and present, looks at both successful and unsuccessful diplomatic attempts, and assesses the contributions of different regional blocs and international institutions. Conclusion: The article's conclusion is that, in response to globalization, regionalism has dramatically changed from state-centric alliances to multidimensional regional organizations. It emphasizes how crucial proactive and strategic diplomacy is to solving today's problems and averting big conflicts. The flexibility of regional alliances, the success of diplomatic initiatives, and the capacity to handle international dangers will determine the direction of international cooperation in the future. Achieving global peace and tackling complex issues requires effective regionalism and international diplomacy.
POLARITY OF THE WORLD BETWEEN GREAT POWERS AND REGIONAL HEGEMONIES
SECURITY FORUM 2020, 2020
The category of superpower, as distinct from great power, has become naturalized in the discourses about international relations. Superpowers are dying out, only great powers is likely to take a more regionalized form, possible downsides of a more regionalized international society. We are facing a future with no superpowers.The world in this century will belong to no one, but various regional hegemonies. Today we must be aware value of regionalism in resolving conflicts and fostering cooperation, because regional countries enjoy specific legitimacy. Regional response to power can also be found at the societal level directed at both the global hegemon and the great/regional powers. Whereas the old regionalism was concerned with relations between nation-states, the new regionalism formed part of a global structural transformation in which also a variety of non-state actors were operating at several levels of the global system.
Confrontational and Cooperative Regional Orders. Managing Regional Security in World Politics
Routledge, 2020
This book explains cooperative and confrontational regional orders in the post-Cold War era. Applying a push-and-pull framework to the evolution of regional orders, the book's theoretical section compares regional dynamics and studies the transformation and authority of governing arrangements among key regional actors who manage security and institutional cooperation. This presents a novel approach to comparing non-Western regional orders, and helps forge a better integration between International Relations disciplinary approaches and area studies. The empirical section analyzes Central Eurasia and South America within the period 1989-2017, using case studies and interviews with decision-makers, practitioners and experts. The volume demonstrates that soft engagement strategies from extra-regional great powers and internationalist domestic coalitions framed in a stable democratic polity are forces for peaceful interaction , while hard engagement strategies from great external powers plus nationalist coalitions within democratic backsliding in key regional powers present negative outlooks for regional cooperation. This book will be of much interest to students of regional security, comparative politics, area studies and International Relations.
Atlantis Press, 2017
—This article tends to examine the roles of middle powers in regional and multilateral affairs, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the currently debatable 'middle power' concept in international relations. Middle powers are states with moderate influence and strategic importance as a part of the international system, as they are able to implement policies to distinguish their identity without relying on decisions made by great powers. The writer argues that based on their most prominent power resource and foreign policy practices, middle powers could be classified into three categories, i.e. Enforcers, Assemblers, and Advocators. Firstly based on Realism, middle power Enforcers possess adequate hard power resources, high economic development, and are capable of deploying their forces to ascertain regional geostrategic domination; for instance China and Russia. Secondly in line with Neo-Liberalism, middle power Assemblers implement diplomatic behavior to establish regional institution, engage in long term mutual consultation to enhance regional trust and initiate peaceful dispute settlement between regional member states; such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey. Finally relevant to Constructivism, middle power Advocators have prominent soft power capabilities, launch branded foreign policies on low-political issues, and play leadership role on ad hoc coalitions in multilateral forums; for example Australia, Canada and South Korea. This article concludes that 'middle power' is not merely an academic concept, but by understanding their middle power resources, states would be able to develop practical foreign policies in regional and multilateral affairs.
Regional Conflicts: New Thinking, Old Policy
Regional conflicts remain one of the most important issues on the superpower agenda, a fact reinforced by President Bush in his discussions with Chairman Gorbachev at Malta in December of last year. Working toward solutions to regional problems of all types--political, economic, environmental, and military--will be critical to stability and the reduction of tension worldwide. This subject occupies as important a place on the East-West agenda as nuclear arms control. Indeed, the two subjects are intimately connected. Finding solutions to regional conflicts is an essential part of the all-important task of preventing nuclear war. The disturbing frequency with which small wars have become big wars in the past gives caution to us all.