Contemporary Russia: A dialogue between English School and Constructivism
Resumo
RESUMO: Um diálogo entre Escola Inglesa e Construtivismo pode ser proveitoso no mundo atual. Como um de seus importantes atores, compreender o comportamento da Rússia é um desafio para as Relações Internacionais. O artigo, então, busca analisar essa questão combinando conceitos de ambas as contribuições teóricas.
ABSTRACT: A dialogue between English School and constructivism is fruitful within contemporary world. As one of its important actors, Russia poses a challenge for International Relations when it comes to understand and forecast its behavior nowadays. The article, thus, seeks to analyze this issue by combining concepts from both theoretical contributions.
Downloads
Referências
BARKER, R. Legitimating Identities: The Self-Presentations of Rulers and Subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
BELLAMY, A. (Ed.) International society and its critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
BERDYAEV, N. The Russian idea. New York: Macmillan, 1948.
BIERSTEKER, T.; WEBER, C. (eds.). State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
BOURDIEU, P. In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflective Sociology. Cambridge: Polity, 1990.
BUKOVANSKY, M. Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
BULL, H. A sociedade anárquica. Brasília: Editora UnB, 2002 (1977).
BULL, H.; WATSON, A. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
BUZAN, B. From international to world society? English School Theory and the social structure of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
BUZAN, B. The English School: An Unexploited Resource in IR. Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, 2001.
CLARK, I. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
CLUNAN, A. The Social Construction of Russia Ressurgence: aspirations, identity and security interests. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2009.
COICAUD, J. Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
DUGIN, A. The Fourth Political Theory. New York: Arktos Media, 2012.
FINNEMORE, M. National interests in international society. New York: Cornell University Press, 1996.
FRANCK, T. Legitimacy in the international system. American Journal of International Law, 1990, 82.
FRANCK, T. The Power of Legitimacy among Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
GELLNER, E. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
GONÇALVES, M. A voz da identidade nacional: a política externa russa como prática dialógica excludente dos chechenos. Dissertação de Mestrado. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2005. Disponível em < http://www.maxwell.lambda.ele.puc-rio.br/8604/8604_1.PDF>.
HAUKALLA, H. A Norm-Maker or a Norm-Taker? The Changing Normative Parameters of Russia’s Place in Europe. In: HOPF, T. (Ed.) Russia’s European Choice. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2008.
HOPF, T. Introduction, In: HOPF, T. (Ed.) Russia’s European Choice. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2008.
HOPF, T. Russia’s Place in the World. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo, no. 79, 2009.
HOPF, T. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1998.
HUDSON, V. Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2005, vol. 1, pp. 1-30.
HUDSON, V.; SORE, C. Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1995.
JACKSON, P. 2011. The conduct of inquiry in International Relations. Oxon, Nova Iorque: Routledge, 2011.
KLOTZ, A.; LYNCH, C. Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. Nova Iorque: M. E. Sharpe, 2007.
KUCHINS, A.; ZEVELEV, I. Russia Contested National Identity and Foreign Policy. In: NAU, H.; OLLAPALY, D. (Ed.). World views of aspiring powers: domestic foreign policy debates in China, India, Iran, Japan, and Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
LIEVEN, D. (Ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
LINKLATER, A.; SUGANAMI, H. The English School of International Relations: a contemporary reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
LITTLE, R. The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 2000, 6:3, pp.395–422.
MANNING, C. The Nature of International Society. Londres: Macmillan, 1975.
MIELNICZUK, F. Sovietologism: Soviet Union as a Western Representation. Tese de Doutorado. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2011. Disponível em <http://www2.dbd.puc-rio.br/pergamum/tesesabertas/0710841_2011_pretextual.pdf>.
MIELNIZCUK, F. Identidade como fonte de conflito: Ucrânia e Rússia no Pós-URSS. Contexto Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, vol. 28, nº 1, janeiro/junho, 2006, pp. 223-258.
MINCHEV, O. The Kosovo Crisis and the International System: Issues of Legitimacy and Actors’ Motivation. ISA 41st annual Convention, 2000, Los Angeles.
NEUMANN, I. Russia and the Idea of Europe. London: Routledge,1996.
NEUMANN, I. Russia’s standing as a Great Power. In: HOPF, T. (Ed.) Russia’s European Choice. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2008.
PLOKHY, S. The Origins of the Slavic Nations: premodern identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
PRENSA LATINA. Putin por una América Latina unida, sostenible e independiente. Available http://prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&idioma=1&id=2871011&Itemid=1.
PRICE, R.; REUS-SMIT, C. Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, vol. 4, no. 3, 1998, pp. 259-94.
RAE, 2003. States identity and the homogenisation of peoples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
REUS-SMIT, C. Imagining Society: Constructivism and the English School. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 487-509.
REUS-SMIT, C. The constructivist challenge after September 11. In: BELLAMY, A. (Ed.) International society and its critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
RUGGIE, J. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization, vol. 471, 1993, pp. 139-174.
SPRUYT, H. The Sovereign State and its Competitors. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
THORUN, C. Explaining Change in Russia Foreign Policy. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2009.
TSYGANKOV, A. Contested idendity and foreign policy: interpreting Russia international choices. International Studies Perspectives, 2014, 15, pp. 19-35.
TSYGANKOV, A. Russia’s Foreign Policy: change and continuity in national identity. Lahham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.
WEBER, M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
WIGHT, C. Agents, structure and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
WIGHT, M. International Theory: the three traditions. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1992.
WIGHT, M. System of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977.
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
1. Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution que permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
2.Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
3.Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre).