قدرت، نوپدیدگی و بحران در سیستم‌های بین‌المللی پیچیده و آشوبی: گامی به سوی مدل نظری نوین

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار روابط بین‌الملل، دانشگاه تهران، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، گروه روابط بین‌الملل، تهران، ایران

چکیده

بحران‌ها به دلیل اهمیت و دائمی بودنشان در سیستم بین‌الملل، همیشه در کانون نظریه‌پردازی علم روابط بین‌الملل و سیاست‌گذاری کشورها قرار داشته‌اند. تحول سیستم بین‌الملل، تحول در دستگاه تحلیلی _ نظری بحران‌ها را در پی داشته و به همین منظور تکامل سیستم بین‌الملل و تبدیل آن به سیستم پیچیده _ آشوبی دستگاه تحلیلی یادشده را با بنیادها و قواعد نوینی روبه‌رو نموده که نوپدیدگی از برجسته‌ترین پیامدهای آنها می‌باشد. بر همین اساس با توجه به ناکارآمدی ادبیات موجود در توجه به این موضوع، این پرسش اساسی مطرح می‌شود که «سازوکار علّی شکل‌گیری بحران‌ها در سیستم بین‌الملل پیچیده و آشوبی چگونه عمل می‌کند؟». پژوهش حاضر با محوریت بخشیدن به نظریه «پیچیدگی و آشوب» و با تأکید بر منطق غیرخطی حاکم بر سیستم بین‌الملل نوین، دستگاه تحلیلی بحران را بر پایه دینامیک قدرت غیرخطی، نوپدیدگی شناختی، علّی و قوانین بازسازماندهی نظری بررسی کرده و دو مدل «هیترارشی» و «پانارشی» را به‌عنوان مدل‌های اصلی در شکل‌دادن به نوپدیدگی در روابط بین‌الملل مطرح کرده است. بحران‌ها، برآمده از گرایش سیستم‌های بین‌المللی پیچیده و آشوبی و دینامیک قدرت آن به زایش نوپدیدگی و کارکرد در دو منطقه مجزای پیچیدگی و انطباقی است که حاکمیت سازوکارهای غیرخطی در این مناطق سبب‌ساز بحران خواهند بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Power, Emergence and Crisis in Complex and Chaotic International Systems: A Step toward a New Theoretical Model

نویسنده [English]

  • Farhad Ghasemi
Associate Professor of International Relations, International Relations Department, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Due to the importance of crises, they have been at the center of theorizing by International Relations and states' policy-making. The evolution of the international system has led to the development of the theoretical, analytical apparatus of crises. In this regard, the international system's change and transformation into a complex-chaotic model have confronted the crisis analytical device with new foundations and rules. Accordingly, given the existing literature's inefficiency in addressing this issue, the fundamental question arises of "how the causal mechanism of crisis formation in a complex and chaotic international system works?" This article focuses on the theory of complexity and chaos. The author emphasizes the modern global system's nonlinear logic and presents the crisis analysis system based on cognitive, causal, and law emergence. The article introduces the two models of heterarchy and Panarchy as the leading models shaping of emergence in international relations. Crises arise from the tendency of complex and chaotic global systems and their power dynamics to emergence and functions in two separate regions of complexity and adaptation that which lead to the activation of nonlinear mechanisms in such areas and then will cause a crisis.
 
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Complexity
  • complex and chaos international systems
  • crisis
  • emergence
  • power
  • Ablowitz, R. (1939). The theory of emergence. Philosophy of science, 6(1), 1-16.
  • Aime, F. , Humphrey, S. , DeRue, D. S. , & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327-352.
  • Alexander, D. (2005). Towards the development of a standard in emergency planning. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.
  • Allen, C. R. , Angeler, D. G. , Garmestani, A. S. , Gunderson, L. H. , & Holling, C. S. (2014). Panarchy: theory and application. Ecosystems, 17(4), 578-589.
  • Birkinshaw, J. M. , & Morrison, A. J. (1995). Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of international business studies, 26(4), 729-753.
  • Booth, S. A. (2015). Crisis management strategy: Competition and change in modern enterprises: Routledge.
  • Brecher, M. (1979). State behavior in international crisis: a model. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(3), 446-480.
  • Brecher, M. (2013). Crises in world politics: Theory and reality: Elsevier.
  • Brecher, M. (2017). A Century of Crisis and Conflict in the International System: Theory and Evidence: Intellectual Odyssey III: Springer.
  • Brecher, M. , & Wilkenfeld, J. (1997). A study of crisis: University of Michigan Press.
  • Brecher, M. , & Yehuda, H. B. (1985). System and crisis in international politics. Review of International Studies, 17-36.
  • Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309-341.
  • Christen, M. , & Franklin, L. R. (2002). The concept of emergence in complexity science: Finding coherence between theory and practice. Proceedings of the Complex Systems Summer School, 4.
  • Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(02), 135-147.
  • Cilliers, P. , & Spurrett, D. (1999). Complexity and post-modernism: Understanding complex systems. South African Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), 258-274.
  • Clark, A. M. , Lissel, S. L. , & Davis, C. (2008). Complex critical realism: tenets and application in nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science, 31(4), E67-E79.
  • Cohen, R. (1978). Threat perception in international crisis. Political Science Quarterly, 93(1), 93-107.
  • Cohen, R. (1980). Rules of the Game in International Politics. International Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 129-150.
  • Crumley, C. L. (2015). Heterarchy. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, 1-14.
  • Cumming, G. S. (2016). Heterarchies: reconciling networks and hierarchies. Trends in ecology & evolution, 31(8), 622-632.
  • Dooley, K. J. (1997). A complex adaptive systems model of organization change. Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences, 1(1), 69-97.
  • Doran, C. F. , & Doran, C. F. (1991). Systems in Crisis: New Imperatives of High Politics at Century's End (Vol. 16): Cambridge University Press.
  • El-Hani, C. N. , & Emmeche, C. (2000). On some theoretical grounds for an organism-centered biology: Property emergence, supervenience, and downward causation. Theory in biosciences, 119(3), 234-275.
  • Elder-Vass, D. (2005). Emergence and the realist account of cause. Journal of Critical Realism, 4(2), 315-338.
  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American sociological review, 31-41.
  • Folke, C. , Carpenter, S. R. , Walker, B. , Scheffer, M. , Chapin, T. , & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and society, 15(4).
  • Fromm, J. (2004). The emergence of complexity: Kassel university press Kassel.
  • Garmestani, A. S. , Allen, C. R. , & Gunderson, L. (2009). Panarchy: discontinuities reveal similarities in the dynamic system structure of ecological and social systems. Ecology and society, 14(1).
  • Gregersen, N. H. (2006). Emergence and complexity. In The Oxford handbook of religion and science.
  • Hanson, N. R. (1965). Notes toward a logic of discovery.
  • Hardjono, T. , & van Kemenade, E. (2021). The Emergence Paradigm. In The Emergence Paradigm in Quality Management (pp. 91-110): Springer.
  • Hewitt, J. J. (2003). Dyadic processes and international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(5), 669-692.
  • Holling, C. (1985). Resilience of ecosystems: local surprise and global change: Cambridge University Press.
  • Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390-405.
  • Holling, C. S. , & Gunderson, L. H. (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems: Washington, DC: Island Press.
  • Ignatyev, M. B. (2012). Crisis how the property of complex systems. Journal of World Economic Research, 1(1), 1-5.
  • Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations: Oxford University Press.
  • Kindleberger, C. P. (1986). The world in depression, 1929-1939 (Vol. 4): Univ of California Press.
  • Lanhoso, F. , & Coelho, D. A. (2020). Emergence Aiming Innovation for Sustainability.
  • Lebow, R. N. (2000). Contingency, catalysts, and international system change. Political Science Quarterly, 115(4), 591-616.
  • Lichtenstein, B. B. , & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels.
  • Maguire, S. , & McKelvey, B. (1999). Complexity and management: Moving from fad to firm foundations. Emergence, 1(2), 19-61.
  • Osborn, R. N. , Hunt, J. G. , & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 13(6), 797-837.
  • Pariès, J. (2006). Complexity, emergence, resilience. Hollnagel, E. , Woods, dd, Leveson, N. (editors). Resilience Engineering. Concepts and Precepts. Ashgate.
  • Pauchant, T. C. , & Mitroff, I. (1992). Transforming the crisis-prone organization: Preventing individual, organizational, and environmental tragedies: Jossey-Bass.
  • Pepper, S. C. (1926). Emergence. The Journal of Philosophy, 23(9), 241-245.
  • Peterson, G. R. (2006). Species of emergence. Zygon®, 41(3), 689-712.
  • Prigogine, I. (1955). Thermodynamics of irreversible processes: Thomas.
  • Prigogine, I. , & Stengers, I. (2018). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature: Verso Books.
  • Sawalha, I. H. S. , Jraisat, L. E. , & Al-Qudah, K. A. (2013). Crisis and disaster management in Jordanian hotels: practices and cultural considerations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.
  • Sayer, A. (1997). Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 27(4), 473-488.
  • Sayer, A. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical social science? Current sociology, 57(6), 767-786.
  • Sayer, R. A. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach: Psychology Press.
  • Scott, D. (2005). Critical realism and empirical research methods in education. Journal of philosophy of education, 39(4), 633-646.
  • Shesterinina, A. (2016). Collective threat framing and mobilization in civil war. American Political Science Review, 110(3), 411-427.
  • Smith, A. (1998). International crises and domestic politics. American Political Science Review, 623-638.
  • Snyder, G. H. , & Diesing, P. (2015). Conflict among nations: Bargaining, decision making, and system structure in international crises: Princeton University Press.
  • walker, B. a. s. , D (2006). resilience thinking : sustaining thinking in a changing world Washington. DC: Island publisher
  • Webb, M. C. , & Krasner, S. D. (1989). Hegemonic stability theory: an empirical assessment. Review of International Studies, 15(2), 183-198.
  • Zheng, Z. (2021). An Introduction to Emergence Dynamics in Complex Systems. In Frontiers and Progress of Current Soft Matter Research (pp. 133-196): Springer.