The Theoretical Foundations of the Alliance of NATO after the Cold War
Subject Areas : International Relations
Hosein Salimi
1
(
استاد روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
)
Hassan Eyvazzadeh
2
(
دانشجوی دکترای روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی
)
Keywords: International relations theory, Unions, NATO alliance, Post- cold war world,
Abstract :
Abstract The formation and alliance of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Cold war era, especially after the war, had been one of the keys and controversial issues of the international relations researchers. The explanation for the reasons of formation and alliance of this organization is formed in three theories which are, realism (classic and new), liberalism (classic and new) also social constructivism, in different ways. This article, meanwhile investigates weight of each of these three theories, it is trying to present a theoretical framework compilation which is able to be a more efficient explanation of the alliance of NATO, especially after the cold war. Based on combined framework, in analyzing the causes of the continuation and development of this organization, we must consider the factors like; the anarchic structure of the international system, the polarity of the international system, the role of major powers in the system, the position of the international institutions as well as the internal factors and forces and the domestic policy in the process of formation and alliance of the unions like NATO. Meanwhile, mental phenomena, material factors must be measured together and be investigated entirely. In this kind of explanation, different factors at different levels, to understand trends alliance of NATO are considered. Eventually, in explaining this issue, the role of identity, especially the process identity which based on that, western identity with a particular interpretation of democratic values in front of non-western identity with different values is considered. In fact, this dual identity results to alliance the organizations like NATO that its aim is to protect the constructed identity in front of Lt. made identity.
منابع:
- عبداله خانی، علی. (1385)، نظریه های امنیت، تهران: ابرار معاصر تهران.
- عسگرخانی، ابومحمد. (1383)، رژیم های بین المللی، تهران: نشر ابرار معاصر تهران.
- کاظمی، علی اصغر. (1366)، نظریه همگرایی در روابط بین الملل، تهران: قومس.
- مشیرزاده، حمیرا. (1384)، تحول در نظریه های روابط بین الملل، تهران: سمت.
- ونت، الکساندر. (1384)، نظریه اجتماعی سیاست بین الملل. ترجمه حمیرا مشیر زاده، تهران: سمت.
- هارتمن، یورگن. (1390)، روابط بین الملل، ترجمه: جواد قدسی، تهران: سمت.
- هادیان، ناصر. (1382)، «سازه انگاری، از روابط بین الملل تاسیسات خارجی»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال هفدهم، شماره 2.
- Buzan, B.(1991), People, State and Fear, Colorado: lynnerienner.
- Buzan, B. (1993), The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism, NewYork: Colombia University Press.
- Baylis, John & Smith Steve. (2009), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Onuf, N. (1989), World of Our Making, Colombia University of South Carolina Press.
- Schimmeifenning, F. (2003), the EU NATO and Integration of European: Rules and Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Tuschoff, C. (1999), Alliance Cohesion and Peaceful Change in NATO, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Wallander. C.A. (1995), Mortal Friends, Best Enemits: German – Russian Cooperation after the Cold War. London: Cornell University Press.
- Fierk, k. M. and Wiener, A. (1999), “Constructing Institutional Interest: EU and NATO Enlargment”, Journal of European Public Policy, VOL. 6.
- Hemmer, C. and katzenestein, P. (2002), “Why Is There NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism and the Origins of Multilateralism”, International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 3.
- Locatelia, A. & Testoni, M. (September 2009), “Intra _ Allied Competition and Alliance Durability: The Cases for Promoting a Division of labour Among NATO Allies”. European Security, Vol. 18, No. 3.
- Mearshiemer, J. (1990), “Back to the Future: Instability in European after the Cold War”, International Security, vol. 15.
- Miller, b. (2010), “Explaning Changes in U.S. Grand Strategy, The Rise of Offensive Liberalism and the War in Iraq”. Security Studies, N.19.
- Mequita, benode (2006), “Intervention and Democracy”, International Organization, No. 60.
- Rim, Toomas (2006), “Estonia and NATO: A Constructivist View of National Interest and Alliance Behavior”, Baltic Security and Defence Review, vol. 8.
- Rodloff, Peter (2013), “Offensive Realism, Defensive Realism and Role of Constrains”, The Mid South Political Sciences Review, vol. 41.
- Russett, B. (1982), “Defense Expenditures and National Well being”, American Political Science Review, vol. 76.
- Risse kappen, T. “Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The case of NATO” in katzenestein, P.J. (ed.), Culture of National Security, Colombia University Press.
- Smith, Steve. (2009), “Reflectivist and Constructivist Approaches in International Theory”, (eds.), in Globalization of World Politics.Oxford University Press.
- Snyder, J. (1990), “Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut” Journal of Inter national Affairs. Vol. 44.
- Snyder, J. (1968), “Alliance Poitics”, International Security Quarterley, Vol. 12.
- Taliaferro, J. w. (2001), “Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited”, International Security, vol. 25. No. 3.
- Vanhom, P. (2003), “Security and Culture, or Why NATO Wont Last”, Security Dialogue, No. 32.
- Webber, Mark (April 2009), “Thinking NATO through Theoretically”, Paper Presented to the ECPR Joint Session, Lisbon.
- Wallander, C.A. (2000), “Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO after the Cold War” .International Organization, N.54.
- Walt, S. (1997), “Why Alliances Endure or Collapse” Survival, No. 39.
- Waltz, K.N. (2000), “NATO Expansion: A Realist View”, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 21.
