comparativepoliticsСравнительная политикаComparative Politics Russia2221-32792412-4990Издательская группа «Юрист»10.24412/2221-3279-2021-10036comparativepolitics-1422Research ArticleСРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КОНЦЕПЦИЙ И ИНСТИТУТОВCOMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONCEPTS AND INSTITUTIONSПроблема уровней анализа в теории международных отношений: на пути к онтологическим обязательствам?The Problem of Levels of Analysis in the Theory of International Relations: on the Way Towards Ontological Obligations?ЛошкарёвИ. Д.LoshkariovI. D.

Иван Дмитриевич Лошкарёв

Московский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) (МГИМО)

Институт международных исследований

к. полит. н., доцент, научный сотрудник

кафедра политической теории

Москва

Ivan D. Loshkariov

MGIMO University

Institute of International Studies

Candidate in Political Science, Associate Professor, Research Fellow

Department of Political Theory

Moscow

ivan1loshkariov@gmail.comМИД РоссииРоссияRussian Foreign MinistryRussian Federation202103012022124СТРУКТУРНАЯ ДИНАМИКА И УРОВНИ АНАЛИЗА В МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ОТНОШЕНИЯХ518Copyright © Лошкарёв И.Д., 20222022Лошкарёв И.Д.Loshkariov I.D.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.sravpol.ru/jour/article/view/1422

   В современной теории международных отношений существует несколько фундаментальных проблем, обсуждение и осмысление которых, по сути, задает траектории дальнейшего развития теоретических школ. Одной из таких проблем – проблеме уровней анализа – посвящена данная статья. На начальном этапе научной дискуссии уровни анализа воспринимались как инструмент исследования, использование которого никак не ограничивает и ни к чему не обязывает. Данный инструмент позволял более четко выделять группу детерминирующих факторов поведения международных игроков. Однако такая трактовка уровней анализа оказалась чрезмерно статичной, что снижало привлекательность этого инструмента для исследований. Важным прорывом стала идея «слабых звеньев» на разных уровнях, которые более подвержены воздействию с других уровней анализа. Н0а втором этапе дискуссии, по мере изучения межуровневой и внутриуровневой динамики, оказалось, что важнейшим аспектом проблемы уровней анализа оказывается содержание взаимодействий. А выявление содержательых элементов взаимодействий явно или неявно подразумевает обращение к вопросам социальной эпистемологии и онтологии, что привело к выявлению нового пласта противоречий и концептуальных развилок в проблеме уровней анализа. Третий этап дискуссии о проблеме уровней анализа пока только начат – преимущественно, в рамках конструктивизма. На современном этапе проблема уровней анализа сохраняет свое значение не только для методологии исследований, но и для эпистемологии и онтологии международно-политической науки. В статье обобщаются достижения и недоработки каждого из этапов научной дискуссии о проблеме уровней анализа и предлагаются перспективные направления дальнейшей работы.

теория международных отношенийуровни анализамежуровневые взаимодействиясоциальная онтологияонтологические обязательстваtheory of international relationslevels of analysisinter-level interactionssocial ontologyontological obligationsReferencesДегтерев Д. А. Формализованные модели в международно-политической науке / Д. А. Дегтерев // Полис. Политические исследования. – 2017. – Т. 4, № 4.Albert, M.; Buzan, B. International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology // International Political Sociology, 2013, Vol. 7, No. 2.Лебедева М. М. Cистема политической организации мира: «идеальный шторм» / М. М. Лебедева // Вестник МГИМО-Университета. – 2016. – № 2.Allison, G. T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1971.Романова Т. А. Институциональные уровни анализа и эволюция отношений России и Евросоюза: некоторые вопросы теории и практики / Т. А. Романова // Вестник международных организаций: образование, наука, новая экономика. – 2016. – Т. 11, № 4.Andriole, S. J. The Level of Analysis Problems and The Study of Foreign, International, and Global Affairs: a Review Critique and Another Final Solution // International Interactions, 1979, Vol. 5, No. 2-3, рp. 122-127.Albert, M.; Buzan, B. International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology // International Political Sociology, 2013, Vol. 7, No. 2.Berkowitz, B. D. Levels of Analysis Problems in International Studies // International Interactions, 1986, Vol. 12, No. 3.Allison, G. T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, Little, Brown, and Company, 1971.Brecher, M. The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Setting, Images, Process. London, Oxford University Press, 1972.Andriole, S. J. The Level of Analysis Problems and The Study of Foreign, International, and Global Affairs: a Review Critique and Another Final Solution // International Interactions, 1979, Vol. 5, No. 2-3, рp. 122-127.Bueno de Mesquita, B.; Smith, A. Domestic Explanations of International Relations // Annual Review of Political Science, 2012, Vol. 15, рp. 161-181.Berkowitz, B. D. Levels of Analysis Problems in International Studies // International Interactions, 1986, Vol. 12, No. 3.Bueno de Mesquita, B. B.; Siverson, R. M. War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability // American Political Science Review, 1995, Vol. 89, No. 4, рp. 841-855.Brecher, M. The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Setting, Images, Process. London, Oxford University Press, 1972.Bull, H. The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Pp. 45-49.Bueno de Mesquita, B.; Smith, A. Domestic Explanations of International Relations // Annual Review of Political Science, 2012, Vol. 15, рp. 161-181.Buzan, B.; Jones, C. A.; Little, R. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York, Columbia University Press, 1993. Рp. 69-80.Bueno de Mesquita, B. B.; Siverson, R. M. War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability // American Political Science Review, 1995, Vol. 89, No. 4, рp. 841-855.Buzan, B.; Little, R. International Systems in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Рp. 76-78.Bull, H. The Anarchical Society: a Study of Order in World Politics. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Pp. 45-49.Copp, D. Hobbes on Artifi cial Persons and Collective Actions // The Philosophical Review, 1980, Vol. 89, No. 4, рp. 579-606.Buzan, B.; Jones, C. A.; Little, R. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York, Columbia University Press, 1993. Рp. 69-80.Cowhey, P. F. Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitment: Japan and the United States // International Organization, 1993, Vol. 47, No. 2, рp. 299-326.Buzan, B.; Little, R. International Systems in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Рp. 76-78.Dahl, R. A. The Concept of Power // Behavioral Science, 1957, Vol. 2, No. 3.Copp, D. Hobbes on Artifi cial Persons and Collective Actions // The Philosophical Review, 1980, Vol. 89, No. 4, рp. 579-606.Degterev, D. A. Formalizovannye modeli v mezhdunarodno-politicheskoj nauke (Formalized Models in the IR) // Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija, 2017, Vol. 4, No. 4.Cowhey, P. F. Domestic Institutions and the Credibility of International Commitment: Japan and the United States // International Organization, 1993, Vol. 47, No. 2, рp. 299-326.Elman, C. Cause, Effect, and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz // Security Studies, 1996, Vol. 6, No. 1, рp. 58-61.Dahl, R. A. The Concept of Power // Behavioral Science, 1957, Vol. 2, No. 3.Fearon, J. D. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes // American Political Science Review, 1994. Vol. 88, No. 3, рp. 577-592.Elman, C. Cause, Effect, and Consistency: A Response to Kenneth Waltz // Security Studies, 1996, Vol. 6, No. 1, рp. 58-61.Gallie, W. B. Essentially contested concepts // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1955, Vol. 56, No. 1, рp. 167-198.Fearon, J. D. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes // American Political Science Review, 1994. Vol. 88, No. 3, рp. 577-592.Gourevitch, P. The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics // International Organization, 1978, Vol. 32, No. 4, рp. 881-912.Gallie, W. B. Essentially contested concepts // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1955, Vol. 56, No. 1, рp. 167-198.Hermann, C. F.; East, M. A.; Salmore, S. A. Why Nations Act: Theoretical Perspectives for Comparative Foreign Policy Studies. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications,1978.Gourevitch, P. The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics // International Organization, 1978, Vol. 32, No. 4, рp. 881-912.Hollis, M.; Smith, S. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1990.Hermann, C. F.; East, M. A.; Salmore, S. A. Why Nations Act: Theoretical Perspectives for Comparative Foreign Policy Studies. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications,1978.Jervis, R. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New edition. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2017.Hollis, M.; Smith, S. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1990.Katzenstein, P. J. International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States // International Organization, 1976, Vol. 30, No. 1, рp. 1-45.Jervis, R. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. New edition. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2017.Lebedeva, M. M. Sistema politicheskoj organizacii mira: «ideal’nyj shtorm» (The System of Global Political Organization: Ideal Storm) // Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta (MGIMO Review of International Relations), 2016, No. 2.Katzenstein, P. J. International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States // International Organization, 1976, Vol. 30, No. 1, рp. 1-45.Leeds, B. A. Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation // American Journal of Political Science, 1999. Vol. 43, No. 4, рp. 979-1002.Leeds, B. A. Domestic Political Institutions, Credible Commitments, and International Cooperation // American Journal of Political Science, 1999. Vol. 43, No. 4, рp. 979-1002.Mabee, B. Levels and Agents, States and People: Micro-Historical Sociological Analysis and International Relations // International Politics, 2007, Vol. 44, No. 4.Mabee, B. Levels and Agents, States and People: Micro-Historical Sociological Analysis and International Relations // International Politics, 2007, Vol. 44, No. 4.Marks, M. P. Revisiting Metaphors in International Relations Theory. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.Marks, M. P. Revisiting Metaphors in International Relations Theory. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.Morgan, T. C.; Campbell, S. H. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: so Why Kant Democracies Fight? // Journal of Confl ict Resolution, 1991, Vol. 35, No. 2, рp. 187-211.Morgan, T. C.; Campbell, S. H. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: so Why Kant Democracies Fight? // Journal of Confl ict Resolution, 1991, Vol. 35, No. 2, рp. 187-211.Morgenthau, H. J. Another “Great Debate”: the National Interest of the United States // American Political Science Review, 1952, Vol. 46, No. 4.Morgenthau, H. J. Another “Great Debate”: the National Interest of the United States // American Political Science Review, 1952, Vol. 46, No. 4.Moul, W. B. The Level of Analysis Problem Revisited // Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Sience Politique, 1973, Vol. 6, No. 3.Moul, W. B. The Level of Analysis Problem Revisited // Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 1973, Vol. 6, No. 3.Noone, H. Two-Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory // World Affairs, 2019, Vol. 182, No. 2.Noone, H. Two-Level Games and the Policy Process: Assessing Domestic–Foreign Policy Linkage Theory // World Affairs, 2019, Vol. 182, No. 2.Onuf, N. Levels // European Journal of International Relations, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1.Onuf, N. Levels // European Journal of International Relations, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 1.Putnam, R. D. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games // International Organization, 1988, Vol. 42, No. 3.Putnam, R. D. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games // International Organization, 1988, Vol. 42, No. 3.Ringmar, E. On the Ontological Status of the State // European Journal of International Relations, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 4, рp. 439-466.Ringmar, E. On the Ontological Status of the State // European Journal of International Relations, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 4, рp. 439-466.Romanova, T. A. Institucional’nye urovni analiza i jevoljucija otnoshenij Rossii i Evrosojuza: nekotorye voprosy teorii i praktiki (Institutional Levels of Analysis and the Evolution of Russia-EU Relations: Some Issues of Theory and Practice) // Vestnik mezhdunarodnyh organizacij: obrazovanie, nauka, novaja jekonomika, 2016, Vol. 11, No. 4.Rosenau, J. Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy // Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Ed. by R. B. Farrell. Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1966. Pp. 29-92.Rosenau, J. Pre-Theories and Theories of Foreign Policy // Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. Ed. by R. B. Farrell. Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1966. Pp. 29-92.Singer, D. J. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations // World Politics, 1961, Vol. 14, No. 1.Singer, D. J. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations // World Politics, 1961, Vol. 14, No. 1.Singer, J. D. International Confl ict: Three Levels of Analysis // World Politics, 1960, Vol. 12, No. 3, рр. 453-461.Singer, J. D. International Conflict: Three Levels of Analysis // World Politics, 1960, Vol. 12, No. 3, рр. 453-461.Temby, O. What Are Levels of Analysis and What Do They Contribute to International Relations Theory? // Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 4.Temby, O. What Are Levels of Analysis and What Do They Contribute to International Relations Theory? // Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2015, Vol. 28, No. 4.Walker, R. B. J. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Walker, R. B. J. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Waltz, K. Man, the State, and War: Theoretical Analysis. New York, Columbia University Press, 2001.Waltz, K. Man, the State, and War: Theoretical Analysis. New York, Columbia University Press, 2001.Wendt, A. Levels of Analysis vs. Agents and Structures: part III // Review of International Studies, 1992, Vol. 18, No. 2, рp. 181-185.Wendt, A. Levels of Analysis vs. Agents and Structures: part III // Review of International Studies, 1992, Vol. 18, No. 2, рp. 181-185.Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Wendt, A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Wendt, A. E. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory // International Organization, 1987, Vol. 41, No. 3, рp. 335-370.Wendt, A. E. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory // International Organization, 1987, Vol. 41, No. 3, рp. 335-370.Yalem, R. J. International Politics: The Continuing Search for Theory // International Interactions, 1982, Vol. 9, No. 3.Yalem, R. J. International Politics: The Continuing Search for Theory // International Interactions, 1982, Vol. 9, No. 3.Yurdusev, N. “Level of Analysis” and “Unit of Analysis”: a Case for Distinction // Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1993, Vol. 22, No. 1.Yurdusev, N. “Level of Analysis” and “Unit of Analysis”: a Case for Distinction // Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1993, Vol. 22, No. 1.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.