intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.46272/IT.2024.22.2.77.2intertrends-485Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYВмешательство в гражданские конфликты: соотношение внутриполитических и структурных факторовIntervention in Civil Conflicts: The Balance of Domestic Politics and Structural FactorsЧерновД. Н.ChernovD.

Чернов Даниил Николаевич – аспирант Департамента политики и управления

Москва

Daniil Chernov – PhD Candidate, Department of Social Sciences

Moscow, 101000

Moscow, 119454

dnchernovv@gmail.comНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»; МГИМО МИД РоссииРоссияHSE UniversityRussian Federation2024211220242226385Copyright © Чернов Д.Н., 20242024Чернов Д.Н.Chernov 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.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/485

С повышением числа гражданских конфликтов наблюдается рост использования вооружённого вмешательства третьими сторонами, которые преследуют цели защиты и продвижения своих интересов. Несмотря на потенциальные выгоды, интервенция может привести к негативным статусным и материальным последствиям для вмешивающегося субъекта. В этой связи зачастую внутриполитические факторы накладывают разной степени ограничения на принятие решения о вмешательстве. Автор интегрирует институциональный аспект теории демократического мира и положения неоклассического реализма для рассмотрения соотношения влияния внутренних и внешних факторов на решение об интервенции. Согласно теоретическим предположениям, повышение демократичности институтов оказывает сдерживающее влияние на проведение вмешательства, но влияние структурных стимулов нивелирует данный эффект. Автор статьи прибегает к количественным методам для проверки предполагаемых закономерностей на широком наборе данных. В качестве альтернативных источников для измерения зависимой переменной, в роли которой выступает наличие вмешательства, используются база данных External Support Dataset Программы данных о конфликтах в Уппсале, а также база данных «Факторы международного вооружённого вмешательства», разработанная в Институте международных исследований МГИМО. Для измерения характеристик институтов применяются данные Varieties of Democracy. В результате анализа статья выявляет неоднородные эффекты различных аспектов институционального устройства на склонность к проведению интервенции, что объясняется различиями в специфике институтов, общественных реакциях и типах вмешательства. Структурные стимулы в большей степени влияют на принятие государствами решения о вмешательстве, но лишь частично снижают эффекты различий в институциональных характеристиках.

With the rise in civil conflicts, third­party interventions aimed at protecting and advancing national interests have become common. However, despite potential benefits, such interventions can result in negative reputational and material consequences for the intervening party. As such, decisions to intervene may often confront domestic political constraints. This study integrates the institutional aspect of democratic peace theory and neoclassical realism to examine internal and structural factors that influence the decision to intervene. Theoretically, enhanced democratic institutions are expected to produce a moderating effect on intervention, but this effect is sidelined when structural incentives take hold. To test these assumptions, a wide range of data sources are utilized, including the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) External Support Dataset and the International Military Intervention Correlates (IMIC) developed at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). Using these two datasets, the author proposes to separate military and non­military interventions in order to test for potential differences in effects that characteristics of political systems may have on them. Varieties of Democracy data are employed to measure institutional characteristics. The analysis reveals heterogeneous effects of different aspects of institutional design on the propensity to intervene. The author suggests that the differences in effects could be attributed to variations in institutional specifics, public reactions, and types of intervention. Specifically, military interventions as a result of their publicity and overtness produce special short­term and long­term public opinion dynamics that are reflected in different effects of various forms of political behavior. Structural incentives consistently increase the likelihood of intervention, though they only partially mitigate the impact of differences in institutional characteristics.

вооружённое вмешательствогражданские конфликтытеория демократического мираинститутынеоклассический реализмструктурные факторыmilitary interventioncivil conflictsdemocratic peace theoryinstitutionsneoclassical realismstructural factorsСтатья отражает результаты исследования, выполненного за счёт гранта Российского научного фонда № 22–18-00664, https://rscf.ru/project/22-18-00664/The study was supported by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation No. 22–18-00664, https://rscf.ru/project/22-18-00664/.ReferencesАнаньева Е.В. Проблемы гуманитарной интервенции и защиты граждан за рубежом // Международная жизнь. 2009. № 7. С. 16–33.Ananieva E.V. (2009). Problemy gumanitarnoy interventsii i zashchity grazhdan za rubezhom [Problems of humanitarian intervention and protection of citizens abroad]. International Affairs. No. 7. P. 16–33.Истомин И.А. Иностранное вмешательство во внутренние дела: проблема концептуализации сущностно неопределимого концепта // Полис. Политические исследования. 2023а. №. 2. С. 120–137. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.02.09Berkowitz B.D. (1986). Level of analysis problems in international relations. International Interactions. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050628608434656Истомин И.А. Оправдание вмешательства? Роль «доктрины Монро» в легитимации и стигматизации интервенционизма в политике США в XIX — начале XX в. // Вестник Московского университета. Серия XXV. Международные отношения и мировая политика. 2023б. Т.15. № 3. С. 11–55. DOI: 10.48015/2076-7404-2023-15-3-11-55Bove V., Böhmelt T. (2019). International Migration and Military Intervention in Civil War. Political Science Research and Methods. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.22Конышев В.Н. Неоклассический реализм в теории международных отношений // Полис. Политические исследования. 2020. № 4. С. 94–111. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.04.07Bove V., Gleditsch K.S., Sekeris P.G. (2016). Oil above Water’: Economic Interdependence and Third-Party Intervention. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 60. No. 7. P. 1251–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714567952.Крылов Н.Б. Гуманитарная интервенция: критерии правомерности применения вооружённой силы // Евразийский юридический журнал. 2012. № 12. С. 37–40.Brody R.A. (1992). Assessing the President: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. 198 p.Кулагин В.М. Мир в XXI веке: многополюсный баланс сил или глобальный Pax democratica (Гипотеза “демократического мира” в контексте альтернатив мирового развития) // Полис. Политические исследования. 2000. № 1. С. 23.Cherniavskyi A.G. (2021). Gumanitarnoe vmeshatelstvo v mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia i ego mezhdunarodno-pravovaia legitimnost [Humanitarian intervention in international relations and its international legal legitimacy]. Military Law. No. 4. P. 315–323.Кулагин В.М. Режимный фактор во внешней политике постсоветских государств // Полис. Политические исследования. 2004. № 1. С. 115–124.Chernov D.N. (2023). Baza dannykh vooruzhennogo vmeshatel'stva: mnogofaktornyi podkhod [Database of Military Interventions: a Multi-Factor Approach]. XXIV Yasin (April) International Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development. Moscow: HSE.Мустафина В., Мальцев А. Военная сила государства-посредника и урегулирование вооружённых конфликтов // Международные процессы. 2023. T. 21. № 4. С. 6–40.Chernov D.N., Nesmashnyi A.D, Tekin O., Igityan A.A. (2023). Counterintervention success: Analyzing Russian and US involvement in Syrian crisis. Comparative Politics. Russia. Vol. 14. No. 1–2. P. 149–163. https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2023-1-2-14-149-163Никитин А.И. Миротворчество ООН: обновление принципов, реформирование практики // Мировая экономика и международные отношения. 2016а. T. 60. № 3. С. 16–26. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-3-16-26Chernov D.N., Zinovieva E.S., Komarova E.S., Arov S.A. (2023). Postkonfliktnaia faza vooruzhennoi interventsii [Post-Conflict Phase of Armed Intervention]. Comparative Politics Russia. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 120–135. https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2023-4-14-120-135Никитин А.И. Новое в принципах и практике миротворческой деятельности международных организаций // Международная безопасность, контроль над вооружениями и ядерное нераспространение: 70 лет после атомных бомбардировок Хиросимы и Нагасаки / Под ред. А.И. Никитина, П.А. Корзуна. М.: ИМЭМО РАН, 2016б. С. 69–73.Chesnakov A.A., Parenkov D.A. (2024). Oshchetinivshiesia aktory [Bristling actors]. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 82–102. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2024-22-3-82-102Никитин А.И. Участие России в международном миротворчестве и перспективы его реформирования // Индекс Безопасности. 2011. Т. 17. № 2. С. 105–111.Chu J.A., Recchia S. (2022). Does Public Opinion Affect the Preferences of Foreign Policy Leaders? Experimental Evidence from the UK Parliament. Journal of Politics. Vol. 84. No. 3. P. 1874–1877. https://doi.org/10.1086/719007Окунева Е.С. Критика теории «демократического мира»: от реализма к конструктивизму // Сравнительная политика. 2015. T. 6. № 6. С. 6–9.Coppedge M., Gerring J., Glynn A., Knutsen C. H., Lindberg S. I., Pemstein D., Seim B., Skaaning S-E., Teorell J. (2020). Varieties of Democracy: Measuring Two Centuries of Political Change. New York: Cambridge University Press. 246. p. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347860Орлова И.А. Современный правовой режим применения силы в международных отношениях // Евразийская интеграция: экономика, право, политика. 2017. № 2. С. 50–56.Corbetta R., Melin M. (2018). Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 62. No. 10. P. 2205–2231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717720754Романова Т.А. О неоклассическом реализме и современной России // Россия в глобальной политике. 2012. T. 10. № 3. C. 8–21.Coticchia F., Moro F. N. (2020). Peaceful legislatures? Parliaments and military interventions after the Cold War: Insights from Germany and Italy. International Relations. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117819900250Сафранчук И.А. Вооружённое вмешательство как основной способ применения государствами силы в современных международных отношениях (составление базы данных и качественно-количественный анализ на её основе). Отчет о НИР/НИОКР. Гр. 22-18-00664, 2022.van Deth J.W. (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6Сафранчук И.А. Вооружённое вмешательство как основной способ применения государствами силы в современных международных отношениях (составление базы данных и качественно-количественный анализ на её основе). Отчет о НИР/НИОКР. Гр. 22-18-00664, 2023.Dietrich S., Hummel H., Marschall S. (2015). Bringing democracy back in: The democratic peace, parliamentary war powers and European participation in the 2003 Iraq War. Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836714545687Сафранчук И.А., Лукьянов Ф.А. Современный мировой порядок: адаптация акторов к структурным реалиям // Полис. Политические исследования. 2021б. № 4. С. 14–25. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.03Dueck C. (2009). Neoclassical realism and the national interest: Presidents, domestic politics, and major military interventions. In: S.E. Lobell, N.M. Ripsman, J.W. Taliaferro (eds) Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869.005Сафранчук И.А., Лукьянов Ф.А. Современный мировой порядок: структурные реалии и соперничество великих держав // Полис. Политические исследования. 2021a. №3. С. 57–76. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.03.05Fearon J.D. (1998). Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy and Theories of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.289Сафранчук И.А., Несмашный А.Д., Чернов Д.Н. Подвижная карта восприятия // Россия в глобальной политике. 2023. Т. 21. № 3. С. 90–102. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2023-21-3-90-102Fearon J.D. (1994). Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. American Political Science Review. Vol. 88. No. 3. P. 577–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944796Скулакова Р.М. Гуманитарная интервенция и миротворческая операция как инструменты предотвращения вооружённых конфликтов (о некоторых современных военных проблемах международного права) // Военное право. 2015. № 1. С. 252–269.Findley M., Marineau J. (2015). Lootable Resources and Third-Party Intervention into Civil Wars. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol. 32. No. 5. P. 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894214530828Сучков М.А. Иностранное вмешательство во внутренние дела как форма межгосударственного противоборства: от типов действия к концептуализации мотивации // Полис. Политические исследования. 2024. № 3. С. 8–23. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.03.02Findley M., Teo T. (2006). Rethinking Third-Party Interventions into Civil Wars: An Actor-Centric Approach. Journal of Politics. Vol. 68. No. 4. P. 828–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00473.xХудайкулова А.В. Миротворчество ООН в XXI веке: основные векторы реформ по повышению эффективности миротворческих операций // Южно-российский журнал социальных наук. 2019. T. 20. № 4. С. 109–126 DOI: 10.31429/26190567-20-4-109-126Foulon M. (2015). Neoclassical Realism: Challengers and Bridging Identities. International Studies Review. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 635–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12255Чернов Д.Н. База данных вооружённого вмешательства: многофакторный подход. XXIV Ясинская (Апрельская) международная научная конференция по проблемам развития экономики и общества. М.: НИУ ВШЭ, 2023.Goldman O., Abulof U. (2016). Democracy for the Rescue–of Dictators? The Role of Regime Type in Civil War Interventions. Contemporary Security Policy. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1228033Чернов Д.Н., Зиновьева Е.С., Аров С.А., Комарова Е.С. Постконфликтная фаза вооружённой интервенции // Сравнительная политика. 2023. Т. 14. № 4. С. 120–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2023-4-14-120-135Haesebrouck T. (2016). Democratic Participation in the Air Strikes Against Islamic State: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw035Чернявский А.Г. Гуманитарное вмешательство в международные отношения и его международно-правовая легитимность // Военное право. 2021. № 4. С. 315–323.Haesebrouck T., Mello P.A. (2020). Patterns of Political Ideology and Security Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/oraa006Чеснаков А.А., Пареньков Д.А. Ощетинившиеся акторы // Россия в глобальной политике. 2024. Т. 22. № 3. С. 82–102. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6439-2024-22-3-82-102Hensel P., Mitchell S. (2007). The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project Supplementary Data Set: Colonial History Data Set. Boston: Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5EMETGШайембетова Ж.К. Концепция гуманитарной интервенции и действующее международное право // Московский журнал международного права. 2009. № 3. С. 62–78. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2009-3-62-78Istomin I.A. (2023a). Inostrannoe vmeshatel'stvo vo vnutrennie dela: problematizatsiia sushchnostno neopredelimogo kontsepta [Foreign interference in internal affairs: deconstruction of an essentially indeterminate concept]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 120–137. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.02Berkowitz B.D. Level of analysis problems in international relations. // International Interactions. 1986. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050628608434656Istomin I.A. (2023b). Military Deterrence vs Foreign Interference: Record of the Cold War. MGIMO Review of International Relations. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 106–129. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-olf4Bove V., Böhmelt T. International Migration and Military Intervention in Civil War // Political Science Research and Methods. 2019. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 271–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.22Istomin I.A. (2023c). Opravdanie vmeshatel'stva? Rol' «doktriny Monro» v legitimatsii i stigmatizatsii interventsionizma v politike SShA v XIX — nachale XX v. [Justification for Interference? The Role of the Monroe Doctrine in the Stigmatization and Legitimation of Intervention in the US Foreign Policy in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seria 25. Mezdunarodnye otnosenia i mirovaa politika. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 11–55. https://doi.org/10.48015/2076-7404-2023-15-3-11-55Bove V., Gleditsch K.S., Sekeris P.G. Oil above Water’: Economic Interdependence and Third-Party Intervention // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2016. Vol. 60. No. 7. P. 1251–1277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714567952Jackson V. (2020). Understanding spheres of influence in international politics. European Journal of International Security. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2019.21Brody R.A. Assessing the President: the media, elite opinion, and public support. Redwood city: Stanford University Press, 1992. 198 p.Kathman J. (2010). Civil War Contagion and Neighboring Interventions: Civil War Contagion. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 989–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00623.xChernov D.N., Nesmashnyi A.D, Tekin O., Igityan A.A. Counterintervention success: Analyzing Russian and US involvement in Syrian crisis // Comparative Politics. Russia. 2023. Vol. 14. No. 1–2. P. 149–163. https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2023-1-2-14-149-163Kathman J. (2011). Civil War Diffusion and Regional Motivations for Intervention. Journal of Conflict Reso lution. Vol. 55. No. 6. P. 847–876. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002711408009Chu J.A., Recchia S. Does Public Opinion Affect the Preferences of Foreign Policy Leaders? Experimental Evidence from the UK Parliament // Journal of Politics. 2022. Vol. 84. No. 3. P. 1874–1877. https://doi.org/10.1086/719007Kaufman J. (1999). Three Views of Associationalism in 19th-Century America: An Empirical Examination. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 104. No. 5. P. 1296–1345.Coppedge M., Gerring J., Glynn A., Knutsen C. H., Lindberg S.I., Pemstein D., Seim B., Skaaning S-E., Teorell J. Varieties of Democracy: Measuring Two Centuries of Political Change. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020. 246 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108347860Kesgin B., Kaarbo J. (2010). When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision. International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00390.xCorbetta R., Melin M. Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2018. Vol. 62. No. 10. P. 2205–2231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717720754Khudaykulova A.V. (2019). Mirotvorchestvo OON v XXI veke osnovnye vektory reform po povysheniiu effektivnosti mirotvorcheskikh operatsii [UN Peacekeeping in The 21st Century: Key Vectors Of Reforms to Improve Effectiveness Of Peacekeeping Operations]. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences. Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 109–126. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-20-4-109-126Coticchia F., Moro F.N. Peaceful legislatures? Parliaments and military interventions after the Cold War: Insights from Germany and Italy // International Relations. 2020. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 482–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/004711781990025Klosek K. (2020). Military Interventions in Civil Wars: Protecting Foreign Direct Investments and the Defence Industry. Civil Wars. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2020.1724726van Deth J.W. A conceptual map of political participation // Acta Politica. 2014. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2014.6Koga J. (2011). Where Do Third Parties Intervene? Third Parties’ Domestic Institutions and Military Interventions in Civil Conflicts. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 55. No. 4. P. 1143–1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00684.xDietrich S., Hummel H., Marschall S. Bringing democracy back in: The democratic peace, parliamentary war powers and European participation in the 2003 Iraq War // Cooperation and Conflict. 2015. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/001083671454568Kreps S. (2010). Elite Consensus as a Determinant of Alliance Cohesion: Why Public Opinion Hardly Matters for NATO-Led Operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00108.xDueck C. Neoclassical realism and the national interest: presidents, domestic politics, and major military interventions // Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy / ed. by S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman, J. W. Taliaferro. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. P. 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811869.005Krylov N.B. (2012). Gumanitarnaia interventsiia kriterii pravomernosti primeneniia vooruzhennoi sily [Humanitarian intervention: criteria for the legitimate use of military force]. Eurasian Law Journal. No. 12. P. 37–40.Fearon J.D. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes // American Political Science Review. 1994. Vol. 88. No. 3. P. 577–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2944796Kulagin V.M. (2000). Mir v XXI veke mnogopoliusnyi balans sil ili globalnyi Pax democratica (Gipoteza demokraticheskogo mira v kontekste alternativ mirovogo razvitiia) [The world in the 21st century: a multipolar balance of power or global Pax democratica (The “democratic peace” hypothesis in the context of alternatives to world development)]. Polis. Political Studies. No.1. P. 23.Fearon J.D. Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy and Theories of International Relations // Annual Review of Political Science. 1998. Vol.1. No. 1. P. 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.289Kulagin V.M. (2004). Rezhimnyi faktor vo vneshnei politike postsovetskikh gosudarstv [Regime factor in the foreign policy of post-Soviet states]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 1. P. 115–124.Findley M., Marineau J. Lootable Resources and Third-Party Intervention into Civil Wars // Conflict Mana gement and Peace Science. 2015. Vol. 32. No. 5. P. 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894214530828Leeds B., Ritter J., Mitchell S., Long A. (2002). Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815–1944. International Interactions. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620213653Findley M., Teo T. Rethinking Third-Party Interventions into Civil Wars: An Actor-Centric Approach // Journal of Politics. 2006 Vol. 68. No. 4. P. 828–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00473.xLevy J.S. (1988). Domestic Politics and War. Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 653–673. https://doi.org/10.2307/204819Foulon M. Neoclassical Realism: Challengers and Bridging Identities // International Studies Review. 2015. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 635–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12255Levy J., Thompson W. (2010). Causes of War. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 288 p.Goldman O.S., Abulof U. Democracy for the rescue—of dictators? The role of regime type in civil war interventions // Contemporary Security Policy. 2016. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1228033Lobell S. E., Ripsman N. M., Taliaferro J. W. (eds) (2009). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. New York: Cambridge University Press. 310 p.Haesebrouck T. Democratic Participation in the Air Strikes Against Islamic State: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis // Foreign Policy Analysis. 2016. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orw035Maoz Z., Russett B. (1993). Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review. Vol. 87. No. 3. P. 624–638. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406402562Haesebrock T., Mello P.A. Patterns of Political Ideology and Security Policy // Foreign Policy Analysis. 2020. Vol. 16. No. 4. P. 565–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/oraa006Meier V., Karlén N., Pettersson T., Croicu M. (2022). External Support in Armed Conflicts: Introducing the UCDP External Support Dataset (ESD), 1975–2017. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221079864Hensel P, Mitchell S. The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project Supplementary Data Set: Colonial History Data Set. Boston: Harvard Dataverse, 2007. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5EMETGde Mesquita B. B, Siverson R. M. (1995). War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability. American Political Science Review. Vol. 89. No. 4. P. 841–855. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082512Istomin I.A. Military Deterrence vs Foreign Interference: Record of the Cold War // MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2023б. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 106–129. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2022-olf4Morrow J.D. (2000). Alliances: Why Write Them Down? Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.63Jackson V. Understanding spheres of influence in international politics // European Journal of International Security. 2020. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 255–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2019.21Mueller J.E. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: Wiley. 300 p.Kathman J. Civil War Contagion and Neighboring Interventions: Civil War Contagion // International Studies Quarterly. 2010. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 989–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00623.xMustafina V., Maltsev A. (2023). The Influence of Mediator Military Power on Armed Conflicts Resolution. International Trends. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 6–40. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.8Kathman J. Civil War Diffusion and Regional Motivations for Intervention // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2011. Vol. 55. No. 6. P. 847–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002711408009Nikitin A.I. (2011). Uchastie Rossii v mezhdunarodnom mirotvorchestve i perspektivy ego reformirovaniia [Russia’s participation in international peacekeeping and prospects for its reform]. Security Index. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 105–111.Kaufman J. Three Views of Associationalism in 19th-Century America: An Empirical Examination. // American Journal of Sociology. 1999. Vol. 104. No. 5. P. 1296–1345.Nikitin A.I. (2016a). Mirotvorchestvo OON obnovlenie printsipov reformirovanie praktiki [United Nations peace operations: reconsidering the principles, reforming the practice]. World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 16–26. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2016-60-3-16-26Kesgin B., Kaarbo J. When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision // International Studies Perspectives. 2010. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00390.xNikitin A.I. (2016b). Novoe v printsipakh i praktike mirotvorcheskoi deiatelnosti mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii [New aspects in principles and practice of peace operations of international organizations]. In: A.I. Nikitin, P.A. Korzun (eds) Mezhdunarodnaia bezopasnost kontrol nad vooruzheniiami i iadernoe nerasprostranenie: 70 let posle atomnykh bombardirovok Khirosimy i Nagasaki. Мoscow: IMEMO RAS. P. 69–73.Klosek K. Military Interventions in Civil Wars: Protecting Foreign Direct Investments and the Defence Industry // Civil Wars. 2020. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2020.1724726Okuneva E.S. (2015). Kritika “teorii demokraticheskogo mira” ot realizma k konstruktivizmu [Critics of Democratic Peace Theory: From Realism to Constructivism]. Comparative Politics. Russia. Vol. 6. No. 6. P. 6–9.Koga J. Where Do Third Parties Intervene? Third Parties’ Domestic Institutions and Military Interventions in Civil Conflicts // International Studies Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 55. No. 4. P. 1143–1166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00684.xOrlova I.A. (2017). Sovremennyi pravovoy rezhim primeneniia sily v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh [Modern Legal Regime Use of Force in International Relations.]. Eurasian Integration: economics, law, politics. No. 2. P. 50–56.Leeds B., Ritter J., Mitchell S., Long A. Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815–1944 // International Interactions. 2002. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620213653Pearson F.S. (1974). Geographic Proximity and Foreign Military Intervention. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 432–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277401800304Levy J., Thompson W. Causes of War. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 288 p.Przeworski A. (1991). Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. 228 p.Levy J.S. Domestic Politics and War // Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 1988. Vol. 18. No. 4. P. 653–673.Rathbun B. (2008). A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism. Security Studies. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 294–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410802098917Maoz Z., Russett B. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986 // American Political Science Review. 1993. Vol. 87. No. 3. P. 685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2938740Romanova T.A. (2012). O neoklassicheskom realizme i sovremennoi Rossii [On neoclassical realism and modern Russia]. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 8–21.Meier V., Karlén N., Pettersson T., Croicu M. External Support in Armed Conflicts: Introducing the UCDP External Support Dataset (ESD), 1975–2017 // Journal of Peace Research. 2022. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221079864Safranchuk I.A. (2022) Vooruzhennoe vmeshatel'stvo kak osnovnoi sposob primeneniia gosudarstvami sily v sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh (sostavlenie bazy dannykh i kachestvenno-kolichestvennyi analiz na ee osnove [Military intervention as the main form of use of force by a state in contemporary international relations (database creation, quantitative and qualitative analysis on its basis)]. R&D report. Grant No. 22-18-00664.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. P. 841–855. doi:10.2307/2082512Safranchuk I.A. (2023) Vooruzhennoe vmeshatel'stvo kak osnovnoi sposob primeneniia gosudarstvami sily v sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniiakh (sostavlenie bazy dannykh i kachestvenno-kolichestvennyi analiz na ee osnove [Military intervention as the main form of use of force by a state in contemporary international relations (database creation, quantitative and qualitative analysis on its basis)]. R&D report. Grant No. 22-18-00664.Morrow J.D. Alliances: Why Write Them Down? // Annual Review of Political Science. 2000. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.63Safranchuk I.A., Lukyanov F.A. (2021a) Sovremennyi mirovoi poriadok strukturnye realii i sopernichestvo velikikh derzhav [The Modern World Order: Structural Realities and Great Power Rivalries]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 57–76. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.03.05Mueller J.E. War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: Wiley, 1973. 300 p.Safranchuk I.A., Lukyanov F.A. (2021и). Sovremennyi mirovoi poriadok adaptatsiia aktorov k strukturnym realiiam [The Contemporary World Order: The Adaptation of Actors to Structural Realities]. Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. С. 14–25. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.03Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy / ed. by S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman, J. W. Taliaferro. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 310 p.Safranchuk I., Nesmashnyi A., Chernov, D.N. (2023). Podvizhnaia karta vospriiatiia [A changing map of perception]. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 159–180. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6439-2023-21-3-90-102Pearson F.S. Geographic Proximity and Foreign Military Intervention // The Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1974. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 432–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277401800304Safranchuk I., Nesmashnyi A., Chernov, D.N. (2023). Africa and the Ukraine Crisis: Exploring Attitudes. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 159–180. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2023-21-3-159-180Przeworski A. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 228 p.Safranchuk I.A., Sushentsov A.A. (2024). The Intervention that Originated the Post-Cold War Order. Russia in Global Affairs. Vol. 22. No. 2. P.10–27. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-2-10-27Rathbun B. A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism // Security Studies. 2008. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 294–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410802098917Sakstrup C., Tolstrup J. (2022). To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Democratic Constraints on Third-Party Support in Civil Wars. Government and Opposition. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2020.19Safranchuk I.A., Sushentsov A.A. The Intervention that Originated the Post-Cold War Order // Russia in Global Affairs. 2024. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 10–27. DOI: 10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-2-10-27Salehyan I., Gleditsch K., Cunningham D. (2011). Explaining External Support for Insurgent Groups. International Organization. Vol. 65. No. 4. P. 709–744. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818311000233Safranchuk I., Nesmashnyi A., Chernov D.N. Africa and the Ukraine Crisis: Exploring Attitudes // Russia in Global Affairs. 2023. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 159–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2023-21-3-159-180Singer J.D. (1961). The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009557.Sakstrup C., Tolstrup J. To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Democratic Constraints on Third-Party Support in Civil Wars // Government and Opposition. 2022. Vol. 57. No. 1. P. 126–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2020.19Singer J.D. (1972). The “Correlates of War” Project: Interim Report and Rationale. World Politics. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 243–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009738Salehyan I., Gleditsch K., Cunningham D. Explaining External Support for Insurgent Groups // International Organization. 2011. Vol. 65. No. 4. P. 709–744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818311000233Schumpeter J.A. (2008). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. 431 p.Singer J.D. The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations // World Politics. 1961. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009557.Schultz K.A. (1999). Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War. International Organization. Vol. 53. No. 2. P. 233–266. https:// doi.org/10.1162/002081899550878Singer J.D. The “Correlates of War” Project: Interim Report and Rationale. // World Politics. 1972. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 243–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009738Skulakova R.M. (2015). Gumanitarnaia interventsiia i mirotvorcheskaia operatsiia kak instrumenty predotvrashcheniia vooruzhennykh konfliktov (o nekotorykh sovremennykh voennykh problemakh mezhdunarodnogo prava) [Humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping operations as tools for preventing armed conflicts (on some modern military problems of international law)]. Military Law. No. 1. P. 252–269.Schumpeter J.A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2008. 431 p.Smith S. (1986). Theories of Foreign Policy: An Historical Overview. Review of International Studies. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021050011410XSchultz K.A. Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War // International Organization. 1999. Vol. 53. No. 2. P. 233–266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899550878Stephan W.G., Ybarra O., Morrison K.R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In: T. D. Nelson (ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. London: Psychology Press. P. 43–59.Stephan W.G., Ybarra O., Morrison K.R. Intergroup threat theory // Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination / ed. by T. D. Nelson. London: Psychology Press, 2009. P. 43–59.Stojek S., Mwita C. (2015). Adding Trade to the Equation: Multilevel Modeling of Biased Civil War Interventions. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 52. No. 2. P. 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314561406Stojek S., Mwita C. Adding Trade to the Equation: Multilevel Modeling of Biased Civil War Interventions // Journal of Peace Research. 2015. Vol. 52. No. 2. P. 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234331456140Stoll R.J. (1987). The Sound of the Guns: Is There a Congressional Rally Effect after U.S. Military Action? American Politics Quarterly. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/004478087015002002Stoll R.J. The Sound of the Guns: Is There a Congressional Rally Effect after U.S. Military Action? // American Politics Quarterly. 1987. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/004478087015002002Suchkov M.A. (2024). Inostrannoe vmeshatel'stvo vo vnutrennie dela kak forma mezhgosudarstvennogo protivoborstva: ot tipov deistviia k kontseptualizatsii motivatsii [Foreign interventions in internal affairs as a form of international struggle: from types of action to motivation conceptualization]. Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 3. P. 8–23. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.03.02Taliaferro J.W. Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited // International Security. 2001. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 128–161. DOI: 10.1162/016228800560543Taliaferro J.W. (2001). Security Seeking under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited. International Security. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 128–161. https://doi.org/10.1162/016228800560543Temby O. What are levels of analysis and what do they contribute to international relations theory? // Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2013. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 721–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2013.831032Temby O. (2013). What are levels of analysis and what do they contribute to international relations theory? Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 721–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2013.831032Vanhanen T.A. New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810–1998. // Journal of Peace Research. 2000. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343300037002008Vanhanen T. A. (2000). New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810-1998. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 37. No. 2. P. 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343300037002008Wagner W. Is there a parliamentary peace? Parliamentary veto power and military interventions from Kosovo to Daesh // The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 2018. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745859Wagner W. (2018). Is there a parliamentary peace? Parliamentary veto power and military interventions from Kosovo to Daesh. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 121–134. https://121–134g/10.1177/1369148117745859Walt S.M. The Origins of Alliances. New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. 321 p.Walt S. M. (2007). The Origins of Alliances. New York: Cornell University Press. 336 p.Waltz K. Neorealism: Confusions and criticisms // Journal of Politics and Society. 2004. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 2–6.Waltz K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. 251 p.Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. 251 p.Waltz K. (2004). Neorealism: Confusions and criticisms. Journal of Politics and Society. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 2–6.

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