China sau Rusia este o putere globala sau una regionala?

China sau Rusia este o putere globala sau una regionala?

Regions, almost however de ned, must be composed of geographically clustered sets of such units, and these clusters must be embedded in a larger system, which has a structure of its own. Regions have analytical, and even ontological, standing, but they do not have actor quality

There would not be much opposition to the proposition that the United States is a global level actor, while the security dynamics amongst the South American states are at the regional level.

Traditional realism does not help because it tends to think in a global track, positioning states as great, middle, or small powers.

The global level is about macro- system structures that constrain and shape the behaviour of the units in the system.

Both the neorealist and globalist perspectives centre on a conception of global structure. Neorealism is built around two levels, system and unit, and is principally concerned to define and operationalise the system level.

Neorealism is in some respects strong on territoriality, and the potential harmony and synergy between it and the regionalist perspective are high, especially when states are the main actors.

There is roomfor conflict between neorealismand regionalismwhen the security agenda moves to issue areas other than military-political, to actors other than the state, and to theories of security other than materialist.

Another potential conflict between neorealism and regionalism is in the latter's contention that the global level has dropped in salience relative to the regional one since the ending of the Cold War.

But in principle the regionalist perspective should be able to incorporate neorealism's understanding of the global level into its own multilevel scheme (unit, region, inter-regional, global)

Lake (1997: 61-2), for example, argues that bipolarity maximises the system level of security dynamics by encouraging worldwide superpower competition penetrating all regions and making the global level exceptionally intense;

Neither do we disagree with arguments that globalisation diversifies and complicates the security agenda, though we prefer to handle this through the device of sectors.

The essential idea in our theory is that security dynamics have a strong territoriality, and on this basis it can accommodate non-state actors without too much difficulty. But it is incompatible with the extreme globalist idea that all levels are dissolving into one.

From our regionalist perspective, a key weakness of both the neorealist and globalist approaches to security is that they overplay the role of the global level, and underestimate the role of the regional one.

Neorealism does not (in principle) have problems with territoriality, but simply chooses not to look much at the levels below the systemic.

Neorealismprovides the better template for differentiating the global and regional levels of our security constellations, yet there remains a problem within the neorealist concept of polarity as the key to the system-level security structure

The task of this chapter is to identify the global level in the post-Cold War international security structure using the neorealist criterion of polarity. The second section picks up the problemof polarity after the Cold War. We know that the system structure is no longer bipolar, but what comes after bipolarity is hotly contested. Our argument is that the global level of security at the outset of the twenty-first century can best be understood as one superpower plus four great powers. It is necessary to differentiate superpowers and great powers even though both are at the global level, and then to differentiate that level fromthe one defined by regional powers and RSCs.

In timpul Razboiului Rece superputerea bipolara era clar definita atat in practica cat si in teorie si a fost destul de usor sa se mute de acolo spre exterior pentru a vorbi despre unipolare, multipolara, si sisteme de difuze

Deoarece bipolaritatea Razboiului Rece a fost definit de superputeri, si multipolaritatea istorica de catre marile puteri, nu s-a gandit prea mult sa se faca o diferenta de terminologia care implica si o diferenta in clasificare, ce ar putea tine de teoria polaritate.

Proiect: Test de evaluare la geografie - relieful Romaniei Referat: Bucegii isi dezvaluie tainele

Luand in considerare criterii si definitii istorice, va propunem urmatoarul criteriu definitor pentru un sistem cu trei niveluri: super puteri si marile puteri la nivel de sistem, si puterile regionale la nivel regional.

Superpowers -The criteria for superpower status aredemandinginthat they require broad-spectrum capabilities exercised across the whole of the international system. Superpowersmust possess rst-classmilitary-political capabilities, and the economies to support such capabilities. They must be capable of, and also exercise, global military and political reach. They need to see themselves, and be accepted by others in rhetoric and behaviour, as having this rank. Superpowers must be active players in processes of securitisation and desecuritisation in all, or nearly all, of the regions in the system, whether as threats, guarantors, allies, or interveners.

Great powers - Achieving great power status is less demanding in terms of both capability and behaviour. Great powers need not neces- sarily have big capabilities in all sectors, and they need not be actively present in the securitisationprocesses of all areas of the international system.Great power status restsmainly on a single key:what distinguishes great powers from merely regional ones is that they are responded to by others on the basis of system level calculations about the present and near-future distribution of power.

China is currently the most fashionable potential superpower.

Regional powers - Regional powers define the polarity of any given RSC: unipolar as in Southern Africa, bipolar as in South Asia, multi- polar as in the Middle East, South America, and Southeast Asia. Their capabilities loom large in their regions, but do not register much in a broad-spectrum way at the global level. Higher-level powers respond to them as if their influence and capability were mainly relevant to the securitisation processes of a particular region. They are thus excluded from the higher-level calculations of system polarity whether or not they think of themselves as deserving a higher ranking (as India most obviously does). Regional powersmay of course get caught up in global power rivalries, as happened during the Cold War to Vietnam, Egypt, Iraq, and others.

Capitolul 3

Acest capitol prezinta o versiune operationala a Teoriei securitatii regionale complexe

RSCT provides a conceptual frame that captures the emergent new structure of international security (1 + 4 + regions).

RSCT has a historical dimension that enables current developments to be linked to both Cold War and pre-Cold War patterns in the international system. It contains a model of regional security that enables one to analyse, and up to a point anticipate and explain, developments within any region. RSCT provides a more nuanced view than strongly simplifying ideas such as unipolarity or centre-periphery.

Security at the regional level

One of the purposes of inventing the concept of regional security complexes was to advocate the regional level as the appropriate one for a large swath of practical security analysis.

The central idea remains that substantial parts of the securitisation and desecuritisation processes in the international system will manifest themselves in regional clusters. These clusters are both durable and distinct from global level processes of (de)securitisation. Each level needs to be understood both in itself and in how it interplays with the other.

Regional security complex theory:main variables

RSCT is useful for three reasons. First it tells us something about the appropriate level of analysis in security studies, second it can organise empirical studies, and, third, theory-based scenarios can be established on the basis of the known possible forms of, and alternatives to, RSCs.

'Regional security complex' is not just a perspective that can be applied to any group of countries.

Regional security complex is an analytical concept defined and applied by us, but these regions (RSCs) are socially constructed in the sense that they are contingent on the security practice of the actors.

The essential structure of an RSC embodies four variables:

boundary, which differentiates the RSC from its neighbours;

anarchic structure, which means that the RSC must be composed of two or more autonomous units;

polarity, which covers the distribution of power among the units; and

social construction, which covers the patterns of amity and enmity among the units.

From its configuration at any given snapshot in time there are thus three possible evolutions open to an RSC:

maintenance of the status quo, which means that there are no significant changes in its essential structure;

internal transformation, which means that changes in essential structure occur within the context of its existing outer boundary.

external transformation, which means that the outer boundary expands or contracts, changing the membership of the RSC and most probably transforming its essential structure in other ways.

Types of security complex