سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,225
تعداد مقالات67,685
تعداد مشاهده مقاله114,994,914
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,666,057
تخشید, محمدرضا, علی کرمی, فریبا. (1400). جنگ و تحریم های اقتصادی در سیاست خارجی امریکا در دوران پساجنگ سرد. , 51(3), 691-669. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2021.317219.1007731
محمدرضا تخشید; فریبا علی کرمی. "جنگ و تحریم های اقتصادی در سیاست خارجی امریکا در دوران پساجنگ سرد". , 51, 3, 1400, 691-669. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2021.317219.1007731
تخشید, محمدرضا, علی کرمی, فریبا. (1400). 'جنگ و تحریم های اقتصادی در سیاست خارجی امریکا در دوران پساجنگ سرد', , 51(3), pp. 691-669. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2021.317219.1007731
تخشید, محمدرضا, علی کرمی, فریبا. جنگ و تحریم های اقتصادی در سیاست خارجی امریکا در دوران پساجنگ سرد. , 1400; 51(3): 691-669. doi: 10.22059/jpq.2021.317219.1007731

جنگ و تحریم های اقتصادی در سیاست خارجی امریکا در دوران پساجنگ سرد

فصلنامه سیاست
مقاله 3، دوره 51، شماره 3، آذر 1400، صفحه 691-669    اصل مقاله (543.29 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jpq.2021.317219.1007731
نویسندگان
محمدرضا تخشید* 1؛ فریبا علی کرمی2
1استادیار روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران
2دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران
چکیده
با افزایش استفاده از ابزار تحریم، و همزمان کاهش توسل به جنگ در سیاست خارجی امریکا در چند دهه اخیر، پرسش‌هایی در مورد اهمیت نسبی این دو ابزار اجبار در سیاست خارجی و احتمال جایگزینی تحریم‌های اقتصادی به‌جای جنگ به‌عنوان ابزار غالب در این سیاست مطرح شده است. بروز رویدادهای بین‌المللی مانند مداخله نظامی امریکا در بوسنی، افغانستان و عراق، و حضور نیروهای نظامی غرب در خاورمیانه برای مبارزه با تروریسم، به پررنگ‌تر شدن اهمیت جنگ در مقایسه با ابزار غیرنظامی برای رسیدن به اهداف سیاست خارجی واشنگتن کمک کرد. در این پژوهش به این پرسش پاسخ داده خواهد شد که چگونه از ابزار تحریم به‌عنوان زمینه‌ساز یا جایگزین جنگ در سیاست خارجی ایالات متحده استفاده شده است. با در نظر گرفتن تفاوت بین تحریم‌های مذاکره‌ای و تنبیهی، لزوم کاستن از فشار تحریمی در پاسخ به همکاری دولت هدف، و نگاه به تحریم به‌منزله جایگزین جنگ، فرضیه مورد آزمون طرح شده است. ازاین‌رو، استدلال می‌شود که در سیاست خارجی امریکا، میزان فشار تحریمی (حذف، کاهش یا افزایش تحریم‌ها) به اهمیت تحریم به‌عنوان جایگزین، زمینه‌ساز یا مکمل جنگ بستگی دارد و به میزان همکاری دولت هدف چندان وابسته نیست. برای آزمون این فرضیه از روش مطالعه موردی مقایسه‌ای اعمال تحریم و یا اقدام به جنگ علیه کره شمالی و عراق در بازه زمانی مشخص، تحلیل رویدادها و مواضع اعلامی دولت واشنگتن با توجه به نظرهای کارشناسان استفاده شد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ابزار اجبار؛ تحریم اقتصادی؛ تحریم مذاکره ای؛ تحریم تنبیهی؛ سیاست خارجی امریکا
عنوان مقاله [English]
Economic Sanctions and War in US Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era
نویسندگان [English]
Mohammadreza Takhshid1؛ Fariba Alikarami2
1Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
2A PhD Candidate in International Relations, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
The adoption of coercive instruments by governments has a longer history than foreign policy itself. In the absence of diplomacy, armed conflicts were the primary means of communication among countries. Over time and with the growing interdependence of countries, military means (i.e., armed conflicts) as the sole conduit of coercion in foreign policy were supplanted by a wide range of coercive means available for governments to use. However, war as the ultimate inevitable option or the last resort has remained relevant. Economic sanction has been one of the most important non-military coercive instruments of foreign policy that has increasingly been used by the United States in recent years.
Many questions have been raised regarding the relationship between this coercive economic tool of foreign policy and the traditional tool of coercion (i.e., war). These questions seek to examine the role of sanctions as an independent or complementary tool of foreign policy, and to explain how sanctions play a role in substituting or preparing the grounds for war. In this paper, the authors attempt to find an answer for the following questions: What role do economic sanctions play in U.S. foreign policy? How is sanction used as the forerunner of war or its alternative? In the research hypothesis, it is asserted that understanding economic sanction as an alternative to war leads to decreasing the pressure of sanctions in response to targeted government’s cooperation, while perceiving economic sanction as a complement (and precursor) to war leads to maintaining (or increasing) the pressure of sanctions, despite the targeted state’s relative acceptance of the demands of the coercive state.
To answer these questions, the authors first explain the importance of coercive tools in US foreign and security policy based on the differences between  military-civilian  coercive  tools, and the distinction between soft power, athard power and “power to coerce” (P2C). Accordingly, we distinguish between the forced “use of force” to defend and the “use of force” to initiate wars. Also, the boundaries between implicit coercion and absolute coercion are drawn. In the next step, we identify the relative position of economic sanction (and war) as the coercive tools of US foreign policy; and the relationship between coercive diplomacy and economic sanction is also explained. Then,  the typology of sanctions and specifically the distinction between bargaining and punitive sanctions are explored. Sanctions are not used in a vacuum, and are primarily imposed against adversaries, the next section provides a chronology of events showing the nature of US relations with two of its nemeses, namely North Korea and Iraq in order to collect data required to test the research hypothesis, using event data analysis.
The findings show that economic sanction can play a role as either the precursor or an alternative to war. Given the US government's ultimate strategy toward the targeted state and the latter’s potential to create significant costs for the US, this role is defined at three levels: regional, international and US domestic arena. The event data analysis of US-North Korean relations shows that the high destructive power of the North Korean government (given its possession of nuclear weapons) led to the role of economic sanction as an alternative to war against that country. In contrast, the case of Iraq reflects the strategy of regime change towards that country, a strategy that was facilitated by the use of economic sanction as an instrument of weakening an adversary before waging a full-scale war to accomplish foreign policy objectives.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Coercive Instruments, Economic Sanctions, Punitive Sanctions, Bargaining Sanctions, US Foreign Policy
مراجع
  1. بیات، محسن. (1395) «جهانی شدن اقتصادی و نقش تهدید نظامی در راهبرد امریکا برای کارامدی تحریم ایران،» فصلنامه سیاست، 46، 1: 65-43، .<DOI:10.22059/jpq.2016.57321>
  2. مصلی‌نژاد، عباس. (1394) «چندجانبه‌گرایی نامتوازن در سیاستگذاری تحریم اقتصادی ایران،» فصلنامه سیاست، 45، 3: 824-801.

 

  1. Baldwin, David A.; and Robert A. Pape. (1998, Fall) “Evaluating Economic Sanctions,” International Security 23, 2: 189-198, <DOI:1162/isec.23.2.189> (Accessed 8 July 2021).
  2. Blackwill, Robert D.; and Jennifer M. Harris. (2016). War by Other Means: Geo-economics and Statecraft. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Blechman, Barry M.; and Stephen S. Kaplan. (1978) Force without War: US Armed Forces as a Political Instrument. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  4. Byman, Daniel; Mathew Waxman; and Eric Larsen. (1999) Air Power as A Coercive Instrument. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1061.html (Accessed 6 July 2021).
  5. Coyle, John. (2004) “Rules of Origin as Instruments of Foreign Economic Policy: An Analysis of the Integrated Sourcing Initiative in the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement,” Yale Journal of International Law 29, 2: 1-36. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol29/iss2/12 (Accessed 6 July 2021).
  6. Drezner, Daniel. (1997, Spring‌) "Allies, Adversaries, and Economic Coercion: Russian Foreign Economic Policy since 1991," Security Studies 6, 3: 65-111, <DOI:10.1080/09636419708429315>.
  7. Daniel. (1999) The Sanctions Paradox: Economic Statecraft and International Relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Drezner, Daniel W.; Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, eds. (2021) The Uses and Abuses of Weaponized Interdependence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
  9. Drury, A. Cooper. (2005‌) Economic Sanctionsand Presidential Decisions; Models of Political Rationality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  10. George, Alexander L.; David K. Hal, and William R. Simons. (1971) The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy: Laos, Cuba, Vietnam. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  11. Gompert, David; and Hans Binnedijk. (2016) The Power to Coerce. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation Press. Available at: https://www.rand.org/ pubs/ research_reports/RR1000.html (Accessed 8 July 2021).
  12. Krishner, Jonathan. (1997) “The Micro Foundations of Economic Sanctions,” Security Studies 6, 3: 32-64, <DOI:10.1080/09636419708429314>.
  13. Katzman, Kenneth. (2003, February 19) "Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S Policy," Issue Brief for Congress, Congressional Research Service, IB92117. Available at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/ files/20030219_IB92117_pdf (Accessed 9 July 2021).
  14. Katzman, Kenneth. (2005, June 14) "Iraq: Oil-For-Food Program, Illicit Trade, and Investigations," CRS Report for Congress, RL30472. Available at: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/mideast/RL30472.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2021).
  15. Katzman, Kenneth. (2021, April 6) “Iran Sanctions,” CRS Report RS20871. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf (Accessed 4 July 2021).
  16. Lektzian, David J.; and Christopher M. Sprecher. (2007, April‌) “Sanctions, Signals, and Militarized Conflict,” American Journal of Political Science 51, 2: 415-431, <DOI:1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00259.x>.
  17. Mastanduno, Michael. (2021) “Hegemony and Fear,” in Daniel W Drezner, Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, eds. The Uses and Abuses of Weaponized Interdependence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, Ch.3.
  18. Masterson, Julia. (2020, July) “Chronology of US-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy,” Arms Control Association- Fact Sheets & Briefs (armscontrorg). Available at: https://www.armscontrol.org/ factsheets/ dprkchron (Accessed 9 July 2021).
  19. Nephew, Richard. (2018) The Art of Sanctions. New York: Columbia University Press.
  20. Pardo, Ramon. (2020) North Korea-US Relations: From Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un. New York: Routledge.
  21. Peterson, Timothy M.; and Cooper A. Drury. (2011) "Sanctioning Violence: The Effect of Third-Party Economic Coercion on Militarized Conflict,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 55, 4: 580-605, <DOI:10.1177/0022002710393915>.
  22. Rose, Eucild A. (2005, September) “From a Punitive to a Bargaining Model of Sanctions: Lessons from Iraq,” International Studies Quarterly 49, 3: 459-479, <DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2005.00373.x>.
  23. Schott, Jeffrey J. (2021, January 11) “US Sanctions have not yet Heavily targeted China's Financial Institutions,” Peterson Institute for International Economics (com). Available at: https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-sanctions-have-not-yet-heavily-targeted-chinas-financial-institutions (Accessed 11 January 2021).
  24. Sisson, Melanie W.; James A. Siebens; and Barry M. Blechman, eds. (2020a) Military Coercion and US Foreign Policy: The Use of Force Short of War. London: Routledge.
  25. Sisson, Melanie W.; James A. Siebens; and Barry M. Blechman. (2020b) “Coercion in The Past, and The Future of Competition,” in Melanie W Sisson; James A. Siebens; and Barry M. Blechman, eds. Military Coercion and US Foreign Policy: The Use of Force Short of War. London: Routledge, Ch. 9.
  26. Schelling, Thomas. (2008) Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 712
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 454


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب