CONTRASTING U.S., CHINESE AND RUSSIAN PERCEPTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY

Abstract: According to realist approach, three most modern influential states Russia, China and US strive to gain maximum freedom in the international arena while retaining independence in domestic policies. The author suggests that a different constructivist approach should be used. Paying attention to the peculiarities of norms and acknowledging the influence of domestic policy on the norms, this approach allows to explain the differences in understanding sovereignty in different states. The political elites of Russia and China tend to consider that the strong central power secures the Westphalian sovereignty, while the historic experience of the US formed the ideal of decentralized power. Aiming at population protection, democracy promotion, terrorist persecution and maintaining US hegemony, American liberal internationalists and neocons are in general eager to step away from the traditional understanding of sovereignty. Russia and China consider sovereignty from the absolutist standpoint, though they have made a number of concessions to the changing norms of territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention. The article proves that the Russian, American and Chinese understanding of sovereignty (both domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty in S.Krasner’s terms) is changing with the emergence of common interests and the necessity to counteract new global threats.

1. Cuisimano M. Love, Beyond Sovereignty: Issues for a Global Agenda, 4th edition. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010; Booth K., Wheeler N.J. The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008; and Powell C. A Strategy of Partnerships // Foreign Affairs. Vol. 83. Issue 1 (January/February 2004). P. 22–34.

2. Waltz K.N. Theory of International Politic. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979, особенно с. 95–96.

3. Mearsheimer J.J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001 вообще не упоминает суверенитет.

4. Jackson R. Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.

5. Krasner S.D. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. P. 3–4.

6. URL: http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1997/a52--153en.htm (дата обращения: 23.05.2011 г.).

7. Headley J. Russia and the Balkans: Foreign Policy from Yeltsin to Putin. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 263–264.

8. Медведев назвал «пять принципов» внешней политики России // РИА «Новости». 31.08.2008. URL: http://www.rian.ru/politics/20080831/150827264.html. (дата обращения: 03.03.2011 г.). [Medvedev nazval piat’ printsipov vneshnei politiki Rossii // RIA Novosti — 31.08.2008]

9. Кокошин А.А. Реальный суверенитет. М. : Европа, 2006. С. 15–17 [Kokoshin A.A. Real’nyi suverenitet. M.: Evropa, 2006. S. 15–17.]

10. Surkov V. Russian Political Culture: The View from Utopia // Russian Social Science Review. Vol. 49. No. 6 (November-December 2008). P. 81–97; а также: Surkov V. Nationalization of the Future: Paragraphs pro Sovereign Democracy // Russian Studies in Philosophy Vol. 47. No. 4 (Spring 2009). P. 8–21.

11. Барабанов О.Н. Если Вестфаль и болен, то больной скорее жив, чем мертв // Барабанов О.Н., Фельдман Д.М. // Международные процессы. 2007. № 3. С. 106–107. [Barabanov O.N. Esli westfal’ I bolen, to bol’noi skoree zhiv chem. Mertv / Barabanov O.N., Feldman D.M. // Mezhdunarodnie protsessi. 2007. № 3. S. 106–107.]

12. Лебедева М.М. Что угрожает Вестфалю? // Международные процессы. 2008. Т. 6. № 1 (16). С. 117–120. [Lebedeva M.M. Chto ugrozhaet Westfalliu? // Mezhdunarodnie protsessi. 2008. T. 6. № 1 (16). S. 117–120].

13. А.А. Кокошин цитирует исследователя международных отношений А.Д. Богатурова и министра иностранных дел Сергея Лаврова. Кокошин. С. 18–19.

14. Кокошин А.А. Указ. соч. С. 22.

15. Shakleyina T., Bogaturov A. The Russian Realist School of International Relations // Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol. 37. 2004. P. 49.

16. Yen C. Sovereignty, Human Rights and China’s National Interest: A Non-Zero Sum Game // Foreign Policy Research Institute. February 2011. URL: http://www.fpri.org/enotes/201102.yen.china.pdf. (дата обращения: 23.05.2011 г.).

17. Blanchard O., Schliefer A. Federalism with and without Political Centralization. China versus Russia, National Bureau for Economic Research. February 15, 2000.

18. Chien S. Economic Freedom and Political Control in Post-Mao China: A Perspective of Upward Accountability and Asymmetric Decentralization //Asian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 18. No. 1 (April 2010). P. 69–89.

19. Carlson A. Unifying China, Integrating with the World: Securing Chinese Sovereignty in the Reform Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. P. 224.

20. Chinese President urges Diplomats to Serve National Interests. 21 июля 2009. URL: http://www.chinaembassy.org/eng/zmgx/zlyjjdh/dycdh/t574517.htm. (дата обращения: 12.05.2011 г.). Также см.: Jisi W. China’s Search for a Grand Strategy // Foreign Affairs. Vol. 90. Issue 2 (March/April 2011). P. 68–79.

21. China Calls for Civilian Protection in Armed Action // Xinhua. May 11, 2011. URL: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-05/11/content_12486356.htm (дата обращения: 17.05.2011 г.).

22. Push Factor; China’s Rescue Mission to Libya // Economist. March 5, 2011; Chinese-Funded Enterprises have 50 Large-Scale Projects in Libya // People’s Daily Online. March 23, 2011, URL: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90860/7328978.html (дата обращения: 17.05.2011 г.).

23. Polgreen L. China, in New Role, Presses Sudan on Darfur // New York Times. February 23, 2008.

24. Wu C. Sovereignty, Human Rights, and Responsibility: Changes in China’s Response to International Humanitarian Crises // Journal of Chinese Political Science. Vol. 15. 2010. P. 71–97

25. Zhongying P. China’s Changing Attitude to UN Peacekeeping // International Peacekeeping Vol. 12. No. 1 (Spring 2005). P. 87–104.

26. Carlson. Op.cit.

27. Carlson A. Moving Beyond Sovereignty? A Brief Consideration of Recent Changes in China’s Approach to International Order and the Emergence of the tianxia Concept // Journal of Contemporary China. Vol. 20. No. 68 (January 2011). Pp. 89–102; а также Ikenberry G.J. and Michael Mastanduno, eds. International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

28. Сравнительный анализ двух школ см. в: Mearsheimer J.J. Imperial by Design // The National Interest. No. 111 (January/February 2011). P. 16–34.

29. Mearsheimer. Imperial by Design. Еще по теме см. Layne C. From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Grand Strategy // International Security. Vol. 22. No. 1. (Summer 1997). P. 86–124; а также America’s Middle East Grand Strategy after Iraq: The Moment for Offshore Balancing has Arrived // Review of International Studies. Vol. 36. Issue 1 (2009). P. 5–25.

30. Johnson C. Making it Official: Hunting al-Qaida Worldwide. National Public Radio, May 23, 2011. URL: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/23/136500471/making-it-official-hunting-al-qaida-worldwide (дата обращения: 23.05.2011 г.).

31. Krasner. Op. cit.

32. Menon R. Pious Words, Puny Deeds: The ‘International Community’ and Mass Atrocities // Ethics & International Affairs. Vol. 23. Issue 3 (Fall 2009). P. 235–245.

33. International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect website. URL: http://www.responsib ilitytoprotect.org/RtoP%20National%20level %283%29.pdf (дата обращения: 23.05.2011 г.).

34. Russia’s Position at the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly. URL: http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/interview/pos64en.htm. (дата обращения: 23.05.2011 г.).

35. The Responsibility to Protect and the Protection of Civilians: Asia-Pacific in the UN Security Council, Update No. 1 (February 10, 2009). URL: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/files/PoC_Update_1%5B1%5D%5B1%5D.pdf (дата обращения: 23.05.2011 г.).