Pub Date : 2023-11-28DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2283244
Aelius (Ali) Parchami
{"title":"Neither Islamic, nor a republic and not Iranian: the legitimacy crisis of the clerical regime","authors":"Aelius (Ali) Parchami","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2283244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2283244","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139226915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-26DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2269664
Alberto Stefanelli, Bart Meuleman, Koenraad Abts
{"title":"The ontological core of political radicalism. Exploring the role of antagonist, dogmatic, and populist beliefs in structuring radical ideologies","authors":"Alberto Stefanelli, Bart Meuleman, Koenraad Abts","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2269664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2269664","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139235696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-16DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2283246
Mohammad Samiei, Janice Webster
{"title":"Devil on the doorstep v. bandits in the backyard: Iranian and American theory-laden perceptions and judgements during three US-led Middle East operations","authors":"Mohammad Samiei, Janice Webster","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2283246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2283246","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139268892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-15DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2260205
J. Rivas, Asbel Bohigues, Rodolfo E. Colalongo
{"title":"The populist ambivalence. Presidents and democracy in Latin America","authors":"J. Rivas, Asbel Bohigues, Rodolfo E. Colalongo","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2260205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2260205","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139271335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-06DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2271657
Ivar Kolstad
Recent work in political economy suggests that autocratic regimes have been moving from an approach of mass repression based on violence, towards one of manipulation of information, where highlighting regime performance is a strategy used to boost regime popularity and maintain control. While the evolving strategies autocratic governments use to legitimise their rule have been the subject of much analysis, the role of third parties in adding to such strategies is less examined. This paper argues that corporations confer legitimacy on autocratic governments through a number of material and symbolic activities, including by praising their economic performance. We trace out the implications of adopting legitimation as a key concept in the analysis of corporate relations to autocratic regimes. We identify the ethically problematic aspects of legitimation, present new quantitative evidence suggesting that corporate legitimation of regimes matters empirically and outline a research agenda on legitimation.
{"title":"Legitimising autocracy: re-framing the analysis of corporate relations to undemocratic regimes","authors":"Ivar Kolstad","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2271657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2271657","url":null,"abstract":"Recent work in political economy suggests that autocratic regimes have been moving from an approach of mass repression based on violence, towards one of manipulation of information, where highlighting regime performance is a strategy used to boost regime popularity and maintain control. While the evolving strategies autocratic governments use to legitimise their rule have been the subject of much analysis, the role of third parties in adding to such strategies is less examined. This paper argues that corporations confer legitimacy on autocratic governments through a number of material and symbolic activities, including by praising their economic performance. We trace out the implications of adopting legitimation as a key concept in the analysis of corporate relations to autocratic regimes. We identify the ethically problematic aspects of legitimation, present new quantitative evidence suggesting that corporate legitimation of regimes matters empirically and outline a research agenda on legitimation.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135682373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-01DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2267364
Bernadett Lehoczki
Sovereignty becomes an essential concept when populist participation in international politics is examined. The research questions of this article are as follows: Which topics do right-wing populist leaders (Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán) connect to state sovereignty in International Organisations (IOs)? How do they act in IOs to defend the sovereignty of their countries if they perceive it – or their domestic power base – to be threatened? The article examines the behaviour of Brazil and Hungary in the United Nations, the European Union (Hungary) and the Organisation of American States (Brazil). The results illustrate that instead of quitting IOs, the populist leaders examined prefer to find like-minded allies among member states, while they also use harsh rhetoric and/or abstention/the power of veto in an attempt to reshape the direction of IOs when they see their countries’ sovereignty and/or their domestic power as threatened.
{"title":"Populist sovereigntism and international cooperation: the case of Brazil and Hungary","authors":"Bernadett Lehoczki","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2267364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2267364","url":null,"abstract":"Sovereignty becomes an essential concept when populist participation in international politics is examined. The research questions of this article are as follows: Which topics do right-wing populist leaders (Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orbán) connect to state sovereignty in International Organisations (IOs)? How do they act in IOs to defend the sovereignty of their countries if they perceive it – or their domestic power base – to be threatened? The article examines the behaviour of Brazil and Hungary in the United Nations, the European Union (Hungary) and the Organisation of American States (Brazil). The results illustrate that instead of quitting IOs, the populist leaders examined prefer to find like-minded allies among member states, while they also use harsh rhetoric and/or abstention/the power of veto in an attempt to reshape the direction of IOs when they see their countries’ sovereignty and/or their domestic power as threatened.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135271213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2271152
Tuncer Beyribey, Nur Çetinoğlu Harunoğlu
ABSTRACTThis article analyses Turkish foreign policy towards the United States (US) during the Justice and Development Party (JDP) era by using a post-structuralist approach. Post-structuralism posits that foreign policy is a political practice reflecting domestic power struggles. Moreover, subjectivities and foreign policy practices are neither universal, objective, nor predetermined, since they are co-constitutive. From this theoretical perspective, the article explores the JDP’s 'foreign policy' discourse on US-Turkish relations, highlighting discursive practices in legitimising specific subjectivities, such as 'conservative' and 'Muslim' ones, as 'inherent' origins of foreign policy conduct. In two phases, 2002–2009 and 2009–2016, it analyses how changes in JDP’s foreign policy preferences towards the US function to legitimise or marginalise particular subjectivities in its power struggle vis-à-vis 'Kemalist' state elites. Ultimately, the article concludes that the JDP’s discourse exhibits a continuity in hegemonising the 'Islamic' subjectivity ascribed to the Turkish population, despite changes in foreign policy decisions.KEYWORDS: Turkish foreign policyJDPpost-structuralismTurkey-US relations Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 See the discussion held in the TGNA, TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Period. 22, Vol. 6, 11 March 2003, 456–462. See also, (Robins, Citation2003).2 Details can be seen in ‘The Alliance of Civilizations Initiative’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Türkiye, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-alliance-of-civilizations-initiative.en.mfa.Additional informationNotes on contributorsTuncer BeyribeyTuncer Beyribey serves as a guest lecturer at Istanbul Arel University. Prior to this role, he held the position of a research assistant at Marmara University, where he successfully completed his doctoral studies. His academic pursuits primarily encompass the domains of terrorism discourse, political violence in Turkey, and Turkish foreign policy.Nur Çetinoğlu HarunoğluNur Çetinoğlu Harunoğlu is assistant professor of International Relations at Marmara University, Istanbul. Her research interests cover Turkish foreign policy, US foreign policy, Turkey–US relations, and Gulf region. She is the co-author of Turkey between the United States and Russia: Surging on the Edge (with Aysegul Sever and Emre Ersen, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2021) and Soguk Savas Sonrasinda Turkiye-ABD Iliskilerinde Orta Dogu ve Lider Diplomasisi (The Middle East and Leadership Diplomacy in Turkey-US Relations after the Cold War, with Ali Faik Demir, Istanbul, Yeditepe Publications, 2023).
摘要本文运用后结构主义理论分析了正义与发展党执政时期土耳其对美外交政策。后结构主义认为，外交政策是一种反映国内权力斗争的政治实践。此外，主观性和外交政策实践既不是普遍的、客观的，也不是预先确定的，因为它们是共同构成的。从这一理论角度出发，本文探讨了民主党关于美土关系的“外交政策”话语，强调了将特定主体性合法化的话语实践，如“保守”和“穆斯林”，作为外交政策行为的“固有”起源。本文分2002-2009年和2009-2016年两个阶段，分析了日本民主党对美外交政策偏好的变化如何使其与-à-vis“凯末尔主义”国家精英的权力斗争中的特定主体性合法化或边缘化。最后，文章的结论是，尽管外交政策的决定发生了变化，但民主党的话语在霸权土耳其人口的“伊斯兰”主体性方面表现出了连续性。关键词:土耳其外交政策、后结构主义、土美关系披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。注1见TGNA上的讨论，TBMM Tutanak Dergisi，第22期，第6卷，2003年3月11日，456-462页。参见(罗宾斯，Citation2003)详情请见基耶共和国外交部“文明联盟倡议”，网址:https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-alliance-of-civilizations-initiative.en.mfa.Additional信息关于投稿人的说明。滕贝格·贝里贝是伊斯坦布尔阿勒尔大学的客座讲师。在此之前，他曾在马尔马拉大学担任研究助理，并在那里成功完成了博士学位。他的学术研究领域主要包括恐怖主义话语、土耳其政治暴力和土耳其外交政策。努尔Çetinoğlu HarunoğluNur Çetinoğlu Harunoğlu是伊斯坦布尔马尔马拉大学国际关系学助理教授。她的研究兴趣包括土耳其外交政策、美国外交政策、土美关系和海湾地区。她是《美国和俄罗斯之间的土耳其:在边缘上涌动》(与Aysegul Sever和Emre Ersen合著，马里兰州:Lexington Books, 2021年)和Soguk Savas Sonrasinda Turkiye-ABD Iliskilerinde Orta Dogu ve Lider Diplomasisi(冷战后土耳其与美国关系中的中东和领导外交，与Ali Faik Demir合著，伊斯坦布尔，Yeditepe Publications, 2023年)的合著者。
{"title":"Power struggle on subjectivity and foreign policy: a post-structuralist analysis of JDP’s policies towards the United States (2002–2016)","authors":"Tuncer Beyribey, Nur Çetinoğlu Harunoğlu","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2271152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2271152","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThis article analyses Turkish foreign policy towards the United States (US) during the Justice and Development Party (JDP) era by using a post-structuralist approach. Post-structuralism posits that foreign policy is a political practice reflecting domestic power struggles. Moreover, subjectivities and foreign policy practices are neither universal, objective, nor predetermined, since they are co-constitutive. From this theoretical perspective, the article explores the JDP’s 'foreign policy' discourse on US-Turkish relations, highlighting discursive practices in legitimising specific subjectivities, such as 'conservative' and 'Muslim' ones, as 'inherent' origins of foreign policy conduct. In two phases, 2002–2009 and 2009–2016, it analyses how changes in JDP’s foreign policy preferences towards the US function to legitimise or marginalise particular subjectivities in its power struggle vis-à-vis 'Kemalist' state elites. Ultimately, the article concludes that the JDP’s discourse exhibits a continuity in hegemonising the 'Islamic' subjectivity ascribed to the Turkish population, despite changes in foreign policy decisions.KEYWORDS: Turkish foreign policyJDPpost-structuralismTurkey-US relations Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 See the discussion held in the TGNA, TBMM Tutanak Dergisi, Period. 22, Vol. 6, 11 March 2003, 456–462. See also, (Robins, Citation2003).2 Details can be seen in ‘The Alliance of Civilizations Initiative’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Türkiye, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-alliance-of-civilizations-initiative.en.mfa.Additional informationNotes on contributorsTuncer BeyribeyTuncer Beyribey serves as a guest lecturer at Istanbul Arel University. Prior to this role, he held the position of a research assistant at Marmara University, where he successfully completed his doctoral studies. His academic pursuits primarily encompass the domains of terrorism discourse, political violence in Turkey, and Turkish foreign policy.Nur Çetinoğlu HarunoğluNur Çetinoğlu Harunoğlu is assistant professor of International Relations at Marmara University, Istanbul. Her research interests cover Turkish foreign policy, US foreign policy, Turkey–US relations, and Gulf region. She is the co-author of Turkey between the United States and Russia: Surging on the Edge (with Aysegul Sever and Emre Ersen, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2021) and Soguk Savas Sonrasinda Turkiye-ABD Iliskilerinde Orta Dogu ve Lider Diplomasisi (The Middle East and Leadership Diplomacy in Turkey-US Relations after the Cold War, with Ali Faik Demir, Istanbul, Yeditepe Publications, 2023).","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135825417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2267371
Tadek Markiewicz
This article proposes to focus on vulnerability in the operationalisation of securitisation theory. It argues that in empirical investigations we often fail to acknowledge that security acts may reflect weakness, not strength. Employing second-generation securitisation research, it first problematizes the common approach to securitisation. Namely, that the self-referential conceptualisation of security acts, together with the realist understanding of power, lead to interpretations of securitisation as a tool of unprincipled statecraft. Secondly, drawing on Brown’s work on border walling, the article reasons that securitisation is predicated on vulnerability. Vulnerability is a legitimising necessity of securitisation. One cannot designate a threat without tying it to vulnerability (real/imagined). Securitisations are essentially claims of vulnerability. Thirdly, utilising contextual and narrative analysis of two case studies, this paper illustrates how securitisations are coupled with vulnerability. The article formalizes a generative research avenue of securitisation. One that better accounts for the intersubjective aspects of security acts.
{"title":"The vulnerability of securitisation: the missing link of critical security studies","authors":"Tadek Markiewicz","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2267371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2267371","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes to focus on vulnerability in the operationalisation of securitisation theory. It argues that in empirical investigations we often fail to acknowledge that security acts may reflect weakness, not strength. Employing second-generation securitisation research, it first problematizes the common approach to securitisation. Namely, that the self-referential conceptualisation of security acts, together with the realist understanding of power, lead to interpretations of securitisation as a tool of unprincipled statecraft. Secondly, drawing on Brown’s work on border walling, the article reasons that securitisation is predicated on vulnerability. Vulnerability is a legitimising necessity of securitisation. One cannot designate a threat without tying it to vulnerability (real/imagined). Securitisations are essentially claims of vulnerability. Thirdly, utilising contextual and narrative analysis of two case studies, this paper illustrates how securitisations are coupled with vulnerability. The article formalizes a generative research avenue of securitisation. One that better accounts for the intersubjective aspects of security acts.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135883503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2265287
Maria Josua
How do autocrats communicate about repression? Previous studies have analysed how autocratic officials justify the repression of large-scale protests to avoid backlash effects. However, we know much less about how everyday repression against dissidents and ordinary citizens is communicated and justified under authoritarianism. This paper is the first to systematically investigate how officials in autocracies justify, conceal, or deny repression employed by different state actors. It studies the communication of repression in two North African autocracies by analysing the novel Justifications of Repressive Incidents in Morocco and Tunisia Dataset (JuRI). The event dataset contains 439 instances of repression between 2000 and 2010 and disaggregates various dimensions of repression and its communication. The empirical analysis shows how the chosen forms of repression influence ensuing patterns of communication and justification. Studying the communication of repression helps us better understand the nexus of legitimation, judicial repression and political violence in autocracies.
{"title":"Justifications of repression in autocracies: an empirical analysis of Morocco and Tunisia, 2000–2010","authors":"Maria Josua","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2265287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2265287","url":null,"abstract":"How do autocrats communicate about repression? Previous studies have analysed how autocratic officials justify the repression of large-scale protests to avoid backlash effects. However, we know much less about how everyday repression against dissidents and ordinary citizens is communicated and justified under authoritarianism. This paper is the first to systematically investigate how officials in autocracies justify, conceal, or deny repression employed by different state actors. It studies the communication of repression in two North African autocracies by analysing the novel Justifications of Repressive Incidents in Morocco and Tunisia Dataset (JuRI). The event dataset contains 439 instances of repression between 2000 and 2010 and disaggregates various dimensions of repression and its communication. The empirical analysis shows how the chosen forms of repression influence ensuing patterns of communication and justification. Studying the communication of repression helps us better understand the nexus of legitimation, judicial repression and political violence in autocracies.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136097530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-11DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2023.2268880
Jonathan Paquin, Pierre Colautti-Féré
ABSTRACTAmerica’s allies have reacted differently to the uncertainty surrounding US global leadership and the return to hard power politics in the 2010s. Some allies have remained steadfast in their commitment to Washington, while others distanced themselves from the United States. Why is it so? This article develops an integrated argument that brings together different strands of the literature on alignment, to better make sense of cross-national and within-case variations in allies’ strategic behavior. By examining three case studies from distinct regional contexts – Japan, Poland and Turkey – the paper shows that although these allies all shared concerns about the Obama and Trump administrations’ security commitment, it was their differing perceptions of the threats posed by China and Russia’s power that influenced their pursuit of either stronger alignment with the US security patron – through internal balancing for ‘attractiveness’ and internal hedging –, or increased strategic autonomy from Washington by pursuing hard hedging.KEYWORDS: AlignmentbalancinghedgingJapanPolandTurkey AcknowledgmentsWe wish to express our gratitude to the following individuals for their invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper: John Ciorciari, Jacob Fortier, Steve Jackson, Dominika Kunertova, Christopher Layne, Darren Lim, Justin Massie, Takuya Matsuda, and the anonymous reviewers. This paper also benefited from feedback at the 2021 and 2022 ISA Meetings. Final responsibility for the article remains with us.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [grant number: 435-2018-1279].Notes on contributorsJonathan PaquinJonathan Paquin is Full Professor of Political Science at Laval University, Canada. He has written numerous articles on foreign policy and international relations, including in International Studies Quarterly, Foreign Policy Analysis, and Cooperation and Conflict. He recently co-edited America’s Allies and the Decline of US Hegemony, Routledge, 2020; and coauthored Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Jonathan Paquin received a Ph.D. in Political Science from McGill University and was a Fulbright visiting scholar and Resident Fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS, Johns Hopkins) in Washington DC. Paquin was also Fulbright Canada Research Chair in Humanities and Social Sciences at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He is currently codirector of the Network for Strategic Analysis, which is funded by the Canadian Department of National Defence.Pierre Colautti-FéréPierre Colautti is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Laval University, Canada. He recently co-published an article ‘Loyalty or autonomy? Canadian and French divergent strategic behaviours in time of power transition', Canadian Studies, Vol. 91, p. 165-187
摘要美国的盟友对美国全球领导地位的不确定性和2010年代硬实力政治的回归做出了不同的反应。一些盟友仍然坚定地忠于华盛顿，而另一些盟友则与美国保持距离。为什么会这样呢?本文发展了一个综合的论点，汇集了关于结盟的不同文献，以更好地理解盟国战略行为的跨国和个案差异。通过研究来自不同地区背景的三个案例研究——日本、波兰和土耳其——本文表明，尽管这些盟友都对奥巴马和特朗普政府的安全承诺感到担忧，但正是它们对中国和俄罗斯实力构成的威胁的不同看法，影响了它们要么寻求与美国安全保护人加强结盟——通过内部平衡“吸引力”和内部对冲——或者通过采取强硬的对冲来增强华盛顿的战略自主权。我们要感谢以下个人对本文早期草稿的宝贵反馈:John Ciorciari, Jacob Fortier, Steve Jackson, Dominika Kunertova, Christopher Layne, Darren Lim, Justin Massie, Takuya Matsuda以及匿名审稿人。本文还受益于2021年和2022年ISA会议的反馈。我们对这篇文章负有最终责任。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。本研究得到了加拿大社会科学与人文研究理事会的支持[资助号:435-2018-1279]。作者简介jonathan Paquin，加拿大拉瓦尔大学政治学正教授。他撰写了大量关于外交政策和国际关系的文章，包括在《国际研究季刊》、《外交政策分析》和《合作与冲突》上发表。他最近与人合编了《美国的盟友和美国霸权的衰落》，劳特利奇出版社，2020年;并与人合著了《外交政策分析:工具箱》，帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦出版社，2018年。乔纳森·帕奎因获得麦吉尔大学政治学博士学位，曾是华盛顿特区约翰·霍普金斯大学高级国际研究学院富布赖特访问学者和常驻研究员。帕奎因也是富布赖特加拿大人文和社会科学研究主席在查尔斯顿城堡，南卡罗来纳州。他目前是由加拿大国防部资助的战略分析网络的联合主任。Pierre Colautti，加拿大拉瓦尔大学政治学系博士研究生。他最近与人合作发表了一篇文章《忠诚还是自主?》权力转移时期加拿大和法国的不同战略行为”，《加拿大研究》，第91卷，第165-187页。
{"title":"From attractiveness to hard hedging: US allies’ response to Washington’s lack of security assurance under the Obama and Trump presidencies","authors":"Jonathan Paquin, Pierre Colautti-Féré","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2023.2268880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2023.2268880","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTAmerica’s allies have reacted differently to the uncertainty surrounding US global leadership and the return to hard power politics in the 2010s. Some allies have remained steadfast in their commitment to Washington, while others distanced themselves from the United States. Why is it so? This article develops an integrated argument that brings together different strands of the literature on alignment, to better make sense of cross-national and within-case variations in allies’ strategic behavior. By examining three case studies from distinct regional contexts – Japan, Poland and Turkey – the paper shows that although these allies all shared concerns about the Obama and Trump administrations’ security commitment, it was their differing perceptions of the threats posed by China and Russia’s power that influenced their pursuit of either stronger alignment with the US security patron – through internal balancing for ‘attractiveness’ and internal hedging –, or increased strategic autonomy from Washington by pursuing hard hedging.KEYWORDS: AlignmentbalancinghedgingJapanPolandTurkey AcknowledgmentsWe wish to express our gratitude to the following individuals for their invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper: John Ciorciari, Jacob Fortier, Steve Jackson, Dominika Kunertova, Christopher Layne, Darren Lim, Justin Massie, Takuya Matsuda, and the anonymous reviewers. This paper also benefited from feedback at the 2021 and 2022 ISA Meetings. Final responsibility for the article remains with us.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [grant number: 435-2018-1279].Notes on contributorsJonathan PaquinJonathan Paquin is Full Professor of Political Science at Laval University, Canada. He has written numerous articles on foreign policy and international relations, including in International Studies Quarterly, Foreign Policy Analysis, and Cooperation and Conflict. He recently co-edited America’s Allies and the Decline of US Hegemony, Routledge, 2020; and coauthored Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. Jonathan Paquin received a Ph.D. in Political Science from McGill University and was a Fulbright visiting scholar and Resident Fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS, Johns Hopkins) in Washington DC. Paquin was also Fulbright Canada Research Chair in Humanities and Social Sciences at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He is currently codirector of the Network for Strategic Analysis, which is funded by the Canadian Department of National Defence.Pierre Colautti-FéréPierre Colautti is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at Laval University, Canada. He recently co-published an article ‘Loyalty or autonomy? Canadian and French divergent strategic behaviours in time of power transition', Canadian Studies, Vol. 91, p. 165-187","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136097696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：