intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.17994/IT.2023.21.1.72.5intertrends-307Research ArticleФИКСИРУЕМ ТЕНДЕНЦИЮCATCHING A TRENDЛегитимация проецирования влияния во внешней политике СШАLegitimizing Power Projection in the US Foreign PolicyБогдановА.BogdanovA.

Алексей Богданов

Санкт-Петербург

Alexey Bogdanov

Saint Petersburg,199034 

enlil82@mail.ruСанкт-Петербургский государственный университетРоссияSaint Petersburg State UniversityRussian Federation202306102023211100–117Copyright © Богданов А., 20232023Богданов А.Bogdanov A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/307

Исследователи склонны рассматривать военно-политические союзы как механизмы, позволяющие государствам выживать в условиях анархии и поддерживать необходимый для стабильности международной системы баланс сил. Между тем альянсы, в которых наличествует значительная асимметрия между лидером и остальными участниками, часто используются в качестве средства легитимации преобладающей мощи и амбициозной политики доминирующего государства. Разнообразие интерпретаций роли военно-политических альянсов порождает неопределённость с точки зрения теоретического осмысления природы международных союзов как институтов структурирования взаимодействия государств и поддержания международных порядков. В целях разработки целостного подхода к осмыслению асимметричных альянсов как инструмента проецирования влияния могущественного государства статья опирается на теорию структурации, позволяющую преодолеть методологические ограничения, обусловленные различиями между атрибутивным и реляционным подходами к исследованию феномена власти. Автор обращается к исследованию асимметричных альянсов США в Европе (НАТО) и Восточной Азии (система двусторонних оборонных пактов) как социальных структур, включающих в себя ресурсы и правила, которые накладывают ограничения и обязательства на Вашингтон, а также поддерживают регулярные практики американской вовлечённости в региональные дела и способствуют легитимизации претензий Соединённых Штатов на гегемонию в Европе и в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе. Этот подход позволяет не только углубить понимание роли этих инструментов достижения целей Вашингтона и механизмов воспроизводства неравноправных отношений между союзниками, но также выявить присущие иерархическим соглашениям структурные противоречия, вызванные нарастающим напряжением между ресурсами и правилами, вовлечёнными в процесс проецирования и легитимации американской мощи.

International relations (IR) scholars have traditionally viewed military alliances as vehicles, serving to ensure the states’ survival under anarchy and to maintain the balance of power essential for the systemic stability. At the same time, alliances that include a dominant state are often employed by the latter as the means of attaining its core objectives and the tools of legitimizing its extraordinary might and ambitious policies. Apparently, this situation favors ambiguity and uncertainty in terms of developing proper theoretical understanding of the nature of alliances as the core institutions, which pattern the states’ interactions, sustain international order, and ensure smooth functioning of the power relations. Seeking to elaborate more comprehensive approach to studying “asymmetric alliances” as the tools of both wielding the dominant state’s influence and legitimizing its preeminence, the paper engages the insights borrowed from the theory of structuration that helps overcome methodological limitations conditioned by dual understanding of “power” as either “attribute” or “relationship”. Specifically, the paper examines the United States’ “asymmetric alliances” in Europe and East Asia as distinct social structures, comprised of “resources” and “rules” that sustain practices of U.S. engagement in regional affairs so as to ensure reproduction of inequitable relationships between the allies and to legitimize the United States’ hegemony. This approach allows to reach more integrative understanding of the role of these alliances as the tools of Washington’s influence and the means of reproduction of the inequitable relationships between the allies, as well as to identify contradictions inherent in these hierarchical arrangements, engendered by growing tension between “resources” and “rules” involved in the process of wielding and legitimizing the “American power”.

альянсыСШАлегитимностьсоциальная структуравластьalliancesUnited Stateslegitimacysocial structurepowerReferencesБуденный А. НАТО и военно-политическая независимость Западной Европы // США и Канада: экономика, политика, культура. 2018. № 4. С. 98–105.Baldwin D. (2013). Power and International Relations. In: Carlsnaes W., Risse Th., and Simmons B. (eds) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage. P. 273–297.Гидденс Э. Устроение общества: очерк теории структурации. М.: Академический проспект, 2003. 525 c.Barnett M., Duvall R. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization. Vol. 59. No. 1. P. 39–75.Истомин И., Байков А. Альянсы на службе гегемонии: деконструкция инструментария военно-политического доминирования // Полис. 2020. № 6. С. 8–25.Beckley M. (2015). The Myth of Entangling Alliances. Reassessing the Security Risks of U.S. Defense Pacts. International Security. Vol. 39. No. 4. P. 7–48.Истомин И., Байков А. Динамика международных альянсов в неравновесной мировой системе // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2019. № 1. С. 34–48.Beetham D. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. New York: Palgrave. 336 p.Истомин И., Болгова И., Сушенцов А., Ребро О. Логика эволюции НАТО: достижения и перспективы // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2020. № 1. С. 26–34.Boguslavskaya Yu. 2019. The member states’ contributions to NATO’s policy in Afghanistan during Donald Trump presidency. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 40–57.Истомин И., Водопьянов К. Трансформация американо-японского союза // Международные процессы. 2016. № 1. С. 121–142.Budyonnyi A. (2018). NATO i voenno-politicheskaia nezavisimost’ Zapadnoy Evropy [The NATO and Military-Political Dependency of Western Europe]. SSHA i Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kul’tura. No. 4. P. 98–105.Истомин И., Силаев Н., Сушенцов А. Стратегии союзничества континентальных и морских держав // Международные процессы. 2018. № 4. С. 42–62.Bukovansky M., et. al. (2012). Special Responsibilities: Global power and American Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 304 p.Лукин А., Коротич С. Между Вашингтоном и Пекином: что ждет азиатско-тихоокеанские альянсы США? // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2017. № 4. С. 5–15.Cha V. (2009-2010). Powerplay. Origins of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia. International Security. Vol. 34. No. 3. P. 158–196.Надточей Ю. Назад в Евро-Атлантику: почему НАТО перестает быть глобальной организацией? // Миро вая экономика и международные отношения. 2014. № 6. С. 18–30.Clark I. (2005). Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 288 p.Панов А. США и многосторонние структуры по вопросам безопасности в АТР // США и Канада: экономика, политика, культура. 2013. № 9. С. 3–14.Clark I. (2011). Hegemony in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 277 p.Приходько С. США и политика партнёрства НАТО // США и Канада: экономика, политика, культура. 2013. № 3. С. 37–52.Dessler D. (1989). What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate? International Organization. Vol. 43. No. 3. P. 441–473.Сёмин А. США–Япония: полвека альянса // США и Канада: экономика, политика, культура. 2010. № 8. С. 34–46.Gheciu A. (2005). Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the “New Europe”. International Organization. Vol. 59. No. 4. P. 973–1012.Старкин С., Рыжов И. Стратегический «разворот» США в Азии: эволюция подходов // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2014. № 10. С. 49–56.Giddens A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley, Los-Angeles: University of California Press. 294 p.Стратегии союзничества в современном мире / Под ред. И. Истомина и др. М.: МГИМО-Университет, 2021. 371 с.Giddens A. (1985). The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley, Los-Angeles: University of California Press. 408 p.Сушенцов А. Стратегия военного присутствия США в Азии // Международные процессы. 2012. № 2. С. 129–133.Giddens A. (2003). Ustroenie obschestva: ocherk teorii strukturatsii [Constitution of the Society: The Notes on the Structuration Theory]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy prospekt. 525 p.Торкунов А. Стратегия администрации Д. Трампа в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2019. № 6. С. 25–37.Gilpin R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 272 p.Юдин Н. Трёхчастная таксономия исследований силы в теории международных отношений // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2019. № 4. С. 68–77.Goh E. (2007). Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies. International Security. Vol. 32. No. 3. P. 113–157.Baldwin D. Power and International Relations // Handbook of International Relations / ed. by W. Carlsnaes, Th. Risse, and B. Simmons. London: Sage, 2013. P. 273–297.Graeger N., Haugevik K. (2011). The EU’s Performance with and within NATO: Assessing Objectives, Outcomes and Organisational Practices. European Integration. Vol. 33. No. 6. P. 743–757.Barnett M., Duvall R. Power in International Politics // International Organization. 2005. Vol. 59. No. 1. P. 39–75.Gronau J., Schmidtke H. (2016). The Quest for Legitimacy in World Politics – International Institutions’ Legitimation Strategies. Review of International Studies. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 535–557.Beckley M. The Myth of Entangling Alliances. Reassessing the Security Risks of U.S. Defense Pacts // International Security. 2015. Vol. 39. No. 4. P. 7–48.Hurd I. (2007). After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 240 p.Beetham D. The Legitimation of Power. New York: Palgrave, 1991. 336 p.Ikenberry J. (2006). Constitutional Politics in International Relations. In: Ikenberry J. (ed) Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition. Essays on American Power and World Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. P. 111–142.Boguslavskaya Yu. The member states’ contributions to NATO’s policy in Afghanistan during Donald Trump presidency // Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. International Relations. 2019. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 40–57.Ikenberry J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan. The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 372 p.Bukovansky M., Reus-Smith Ch., Wheeler N., Price R., Clark I., Eckersley R. Special Responsibilities: Global power and American Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 304 p.Istomin I. et. al. (eds) (2021). Strategii soyuznichestva v sovremennom mire [Alliance strategies in the contemporary world]. Moscow: MGIMO-University. 371 p.Cha V. Powerplay. Origins of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia // International Security, 2009/10. Vol. 34. No. 3. P. 158–196.Istomin I., Baykov A. (2019). Dinamika mezhdunarodnykh al’yansov v neravnovesnoj mirovoj sisteme [The Dynamics of International Alliances in an Unbalanced World System]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdu narodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 1. P. 34–48.Clark I. Hegemony in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. 277 p.Istomin I., Baykov A. (2020). Al’yansy na sluzhbe gegemonii: dekonstruktsiia instrumentariia voennopoliticheskogo dominirovaniia [Alliances at the Service of Hegemony: Deconstruction of the Military Domination Toolbox]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 8–25.Clark I. Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. 288 p.Istomin I., Bolgova I., Sushentsov A., Rebro O. (2020). Logika evolyutsii NATO: dostizheniya i perspektivy [The Logic of the NATO’s Evolution: Achievments and Prospects]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 26–34.Dessler D. What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate? // International Organization. 1989. Vol. 43. No. 3. P. 441–473.Istomin I., Silaev N., Sushentsov A. (2018). Strategii soiuznichestva kontinental’nykh i morskikh derzhav [Alliance Strategies of Continental and Maritime Powers]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 42–62.Gheciu A. Security Institutions as Agents of Socialization? NATO and the “New Europe” // International Organization. 2005. Vol. 59. No. 4. P. 973–1012.Istomin I., Vodopyanov K. (2016). Transformatsiya amerikano-yaponskogo soyuza [Transformation of U.S.-Japan Alliance]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 121–142.Giddens A. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley, Los-Angeles: University of California Press, 1979. 294 p.Lake D. (2009). Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 232 p.Giddens A. The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley and Los-Angeles: University of California Press, 1985. 408 p.Legro J. (1997). Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the “Failure” of Internationalism. International Organization. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 31–63.Gilpin R. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. 272 p.Lukin A., Korotich S. (2017). Mezhdu Vashingtonom i Pekinom: chto zhdyot tikhookeanskie al’yansy SSHA? [Between Washington and Beijing: What is the Future of the United States’ Pacific Alliances?]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 61. No. 4. P. 5–15.Goh E. Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies // International Security. 2007. Vol. 32. No. 3. P. 113–157.Nadtochei Yu. (2014). Nazad v Evro-Atlantiku: pochemu NATO perestayot byt’ global’noy organizatsiej [Back to Euro-Atlantic: Why the NATO Ceases to Be the Global Organization?] Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 6. P. 18–30.Graeger N., Haugevik K. The EU’s Performance with and within NATO: Assessing Objectives, Outcomes and Organisational Practices // European Integration. 2011. Vol. 33. No. 6. P. 743–757.Nye-jr. J., Keohane R. (1971). Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction. International Organization. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 329–349.Gronau J., Schmidtke H. The Quest for Legitimacy in World Politics – International Institutions’ Legitimation Strategies // Review of International Studies. 2016. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 535–557.Panov A. (2013). SSHA i mnogostoronnie struktury po voprosam bezopasnosti v ATR [The United States and Multilateral Security Structures in the Asia-Pacific]. SSHA i Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kul’tura. No. 9. P. 3–14.Hurd I. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2007. 240 p.Posen B., Ross A. (1996-1997). Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy. International Security. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 5–54.Hurrel A. Power, Institutions, and the Production of Inequality // Power in Global Governance / ed. by M. Barnett, R. Duvall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. P. 33–58.Prikhod’ko S. (2013). SSHA i politika partnyorstva NATO [The United States and the NATO’s Policy of Partnership]. SSHA i Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kul’tura. No. 3. P. 37–53.Ikenberry J. Constitutional Politics in International Relations // Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition. Essays on American Power and World Politics / ed. by J. Ikenberry. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006. P. 111–142.Reus-Smith Ch. (2004). American Power and World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. 184 p.Ikenberry J. Liberal Leviathan. The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. 372 p.Reus-Smith Ch. (2007). International Crises of Legitimacy. International Politics. Vol. 44. No. 2–3. P. 157–174.Lake D. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. 232 p.Schmitt O. (2017). International Organization at War: NATO Practices in the Afghan Campaign. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 502–518.Legro J. Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the “Failure” of Internationalism // International Organization. 1997. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 31–63.Scholte J. 2019. Sources of Legitimacy in Global Governance. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 47–76.Nye-jr. J., Keohane R. Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction // International Organization. 1971. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 329–349.Shambaugh D. (2004/05). China Engages Asia: Reshaping the Regional Order. International Security. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 64–99.Posen B., Ross A. Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy // International Security. 1996/97. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 5–54.Sperling J., Webber M. (2019). Trump’s Foreign Policy and NATO. Review of International Studies. Vol. 45. No. 3. P. 511–526.Reus-Smith Ch. American Power and World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004. 184 p.Starkin S., Ryzhov I. (2014). Strategicheskij razvorot SSHA v Azii: evolutsiya podkhodov [The United States’ Strategic Pivot to Asia: Evolution of the Approaches]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. No. 10. P. 49–56.Reus-Smith Ch. International Crises of Legitimacy // International Politics. 2007. Vol. 44. No. 2/3. Р. 157–174.Sundaram S. (2021) Strategic Legitimation through Rhetorical Dissociation in International Relations. Jornal of Global Security Studies. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 1–19.Schmitt O. International Organization at War: NATO Practices in the Afghan Campaign // Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 502–518.Sushentsov A. (2012). Strategiya voennogo prisutstviya SSHA v Azii [The Strategy of the United States’ Military Presence in Asia]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 129–133.Scholte J. Sources of Legitimacy in Global Governance // Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law. 2019. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 47–76.Syomin A. (2010). SSHA-Iaponia: polveka al’iansa [The United States and Japan: The Fifty Years Alliance]. SSHA i Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kul’tura. No. 8. P. 34–46.Shambaugh D. China Engages Asia: Reshaping the Regional Order // International Security. 2004/05. Vol. 29. No. 3. P. 64–99.Torkunov A. (2019). Strategiya administratsii D. Trampa v aziatsko-tikhookeanskom regione [Strategy of the D. Trump’s administration in the Asia-Pacific]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 25–37.Sperling J., Webber M. Trump’s Foreign Policy and NATO // Review of International Studies. 2019. Vol. 45. No. 3. P. 511–526.Walt S. (2009). Alliances in a Unipolar World. World Politics. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 86–120.Sundaram S. Strategic Legitimation through Rhetorical Dissociation in International Relations // Journal of Global Security Studies. 2021. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 1–19.Wight M. (1991). International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press. 286 p.Walt S. Alliances in a Unipolar World // World Politics. 2009. Vol. 61. No. 1. P. 86–120.Wirth Ch. (2015). Securing Japan in the ‘West’: The US-Japan Alliance and Identity Politics in the Asian Century. Geopolitics. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 287–307.Wight M. International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991. 286 p.Yudin N. (2019). Tryohchastnaia taksonomiia issledovaniy sily v teorii mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [Threefold Taxonomy of Power Studies in International Relations Theory]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 68–77.Wirth Ch. Securing Japan in the ‘West’: The US-Japan Alliance and Identity Politics in the Asian Century // Geopolitics. 2015. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 287–307.Wirth Ch. Securing Japan in the ‘West’: The US-Japan Alliance and Identity Politics in the Asian Century // Geopolitics. 2015. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 287–307.

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