Vol 20, No 2 (2020): Contemporary Area Studies: Overcoming Level-of-Analysis Eclecticism

This article is devoted to a review of the formation of the theoretical foundations of the modern generation of regionalism. In the article, the authors tried to provide an overview of the publications of foreign and Russian researchers on modern theories of regionalism, examined the evolution of theoretical approaches to the study of regionalism, and also tried to identify the main trends and niches in the development of regional studies abroad and in Russia. The current practice of regional development requires the development of new theoretical and methodological approaches to their study. There is a wide variety of different integration forms in modern world. There is an overlapping membership of a large number of states in various regional structures, and a supplement of formal interstate interactions at the regional level with expanding stable informal and “private” ties. Besides the formation of regional cooperation in various fields take place, and, finally, the intensification of direct relations between interstate unions of different regions and the creation of transcontinental blocks of cooperation. All of the above is a complex “multi-level structure” that is gradually developed in the evolution process of regionalism. The purpose of this article is to determine the theoretical foundations of the modern generation of regionalism, its problem field and the difficulties in its study. As a result, the authors came to the conclusion that modern regionalism is a multidimensional, eclectic approach to the study of various forms of regional ties, taking into account not only regional but also global contexts, the formation of the theoretical and conceptual foundations of which has not yet been completed.

In recent decades, area studies have been transformed from mostly descriptive ethnographic and historical accounts to theory-oriented and analytical approaches. They retain some of their depth and cultural specificity, but have been widened in a comparative sense to come up with some broader social scientific explanations. This has been enhanced by more recent systematic comparative methods such as “Qualitative Comparative Analysis” (QCA) and related procedures, which are particularly suitable for medium-N studies of specific regions at the macro-level and cross-area analyses in contrast to more common statistical approaches. This paper discusses the epistemological background of this approach as well as recent methodological developments. As an illustration, it provides an example of an ongoing large international “cross-area” research project concerned with successful democratic transformations in different world regions and more recent threats to democratic stability and some of their underlying causes. Here, in particular, the relationships between level of socio-economic development and liberal democracy (the “Lipset hypothesis”) and the effects of “good governance” in terms of the World Bank indicators on democratic stability are investigated. This is done on the basis of selected “cross-area” cases with the help of both crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA. In this way, both the utility of this approach for “medium-range theorizing” in the social sciences and possible practical-political applications are demonstrated.

The article is devoted to an analysis of some concepts and geopolitical approaches towards the international relations in the Indian Ocean, later the Great Indian Ocean (GIO). It is the conceptual approaches that have given and give the opportunity to understand the system and structure of the IO region and to analyze the evolution, trends and practices in this system. In recent decades, the region has evolved from the mosaic of countries and the randomness of interstate relations in the first postcolonial years to a qualitatively different than before, expanded and central role in world politics and geostrategy due to new factors of the 21st century, many of which were somehow reflected in theoretical ideas of international relations (IO), proposed by Indian scholars. The article analyzes the correlation of approaches of Indian authors with Western approaches, reveals the features of Indian approaches in the context of the characteristics of the IR system of the Indian Ocean region, and identifies similarities with approaches of specialists from other Asian countries. The evolution of the concepts of Indian scientists has gone through three stages in its development. The first one is a postcolonial period till 1991, the end of bipolarity. The second is characterized by forming of the IO system under conditions of littoral states entrance in the IO scene and China intrusion in the Indian Ocean region. The essence of the third period is in transformation of the GIO IR system in force of the concept of uniting with the Asia-Pacific Region (APR) and forming Indo-Pacific megaregion.

This article refers to the Central European countries by meaning the Visegrad Group countries (V4) - Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia. The development of the Visegrad Group aimed on integration to the Euro-Atlantic structures fulfilled its promise, nevertheless, the membership in Western structures does not necessarily mean the loss of Russian influence in the region of Central Europe. On the contrary, the region’s connection to Russia developed in the past remained to some extent even after the process of political transition in particular countries. Such connections are responsible for foreign policy discourse with a plethora of questions and misunderstandings on issues related to the political attitudes of Visegrad members towards Russia and some contradictory stances of the V4 countries among themselves as well with respect to Brussels. The EU’s politics of sanctions towards Russia is having a direct, counterproductive effect in Visegrad, what is resulting in undermined relations and weakened coherence inside the EU with the emergence of anti-Western and pro-Russian political parties that creates the space for Russian foreign policy to achieve more influence in the region. This article is analyzing the background of such discourse and some of the reasons behind the pro-Russian sentiment or discrepancies and non-coherence of the EU members’ opinions on Russia. At the same time, the awareness of the outcomes of this article can be relevant in analyzing the possibilities to avoid the deepening of the conflictual foreign policy between the EU and Russia, or the Visegrad and Russia, respectively. The research is built on both, primary and secondary sources, related mainly to the evolution of relations in specific areas between both sides. The mentioned historical perspective creates the basis of the analysis and is further put into contemporary discourse to find the answers on the question: what are the reasons for non-coherence of the EU and Visegrad towards the policy against Russia? To achieve the above-mentioned results, the analysis is provided in chronological perspective using the mixed methods by exploring the official documents, scholarly articles published on the topic, and public polls as well.

Professor Alexei D. Voskressenski is a leading Russian expert in Asian Studies, IR and Politics, a famous sinologist and founder of scientific school of World Regional Studies. Alexei D. Voskressenski graduated from MSU Institute of Asian and African Studies in 1982, in the following years continued his education at Singapore National University (1983), Fudan University (1986), Beijing Linguistic University (1987). He worked as a guest researcher in France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Japan and the USA, defended his PhD and senior doctorate at the RAS Institute of Far Eastern Studies (1989, 1998) and the PhD thesis at the University of Manchester (1997). As the head of the Department of Asian and African Studies at MGIMO University (1999-2007) and the dean of the MGIMO College of Political Affairs and World Politics (2008-2017), he actively participated in the creation and conceptualization of educational programs in Regional Studies, Comparative Political Science, foreign policy analyses, history and contemporary issues of the Asia-Pacific region. Professor Voskressenski is the author of more than 500 academic works, including books published by Palgrave Macmillan, Rowman & Littlefield / Lexington Books, Cambridge University Press, etc. Professor Voskressenski is a member of the editorial boards of academic peer-reviewed journals: «Problems of the Far East», «Values and Meanings», «RSUH Bulletin», «International Trends», «Transbaikal State University Journal» and our journal (Vestnik RUDN), and some international journals «俄罗斯 学 刊» (Russian Studies), «International Journal of Russian Studies». In the interview, Alexei D. Voskressenski speaks about the history of formation and advantages of the World Regional Studies as a research platform, other approaches in Social Sciences, compares approaches of the leading Russian academic schools of Regional Studies and analyzes the positive and negative aspects of the Western, Non-Western and national academic schools. The interview contains a theoretical analysis and understanding of the conceptual content of scientific knowledge in the field of international relations theory, humanities and social sciences in general.

Silences in the discipline of International Relations on genocide amount to a form of genocide denial, which is one of the foundations of future genocide. The paper posits that in the era of militarized global apartheid, progressive scholars are challenged to critique and expose the past and current crimes against humanity that are occurring in Africa. Drawing from the consolidation of an alternative analysis in the context of the Bandung Project, the paper analyzed the contributions of the ideas that emerged out of the anti-apartheid struggles and the struggles for reparative justice. Struggles from the Global South had culminated in the World Conference against Racism (WCAR) process, elevating the anti-racist battles as a core challenge of Africa’s International Relations. This rejuvenation and energies coming out of the protracted struggle for bread, peace and justice took the form of the transition to the African Union leaving behind the concept of the noninterference in the internal affairs of states. The paper analyzed the ways in which afro-pessimism was being reinforced by the constructivist path in African International Relations. The contributions of radical African feminists are presented as one new direction where there is the coalescence of the progressive anti-imperialist intellectual traditions with radical feminisms. These two traditions open possibilities for an emancipatory project. This project has taken on extra importance in the period of the fragility of global capital when the precariousness of capitalism threatens new and endless wars and destabilization in Africa. Modern humanitarianism forms one component of the weaponization of everything and it is within this ensemble of ideas that scholars need to deconstruct the discussion of ‘failed states’ in Africa.

In this paper the authors aim to establish the reasons that led the Chinese state to view Latin America as an important partner between 2002 and 2018 and try to analyse the development of Chinese presence in Latin America and its possible impacts and perspectives in the 21st century in Brazil. For that, both political and economic relations between China and Latin America’s countries, especially the relations between China and Brazil, and their development are examined by using a comparative and historical approach. This paper is divided in three sections. The first part characterizes the emergence of Asia as a prominent actor within the current world system and China’s participation as a major economic competitor from the 1980s. In the second section, the Chinese interest in Latin America and its importance is analysed. Finally, the influence of China in Brazil is exposed in the last section. In the conclusion, undoubtedly, the Asian country has a huge influence in areas where it conquers, especially in Latin America and Brazil, leading mainly investments and its products of both high technology and low cost. In the short term, countries that receive this type of investment see an increase in production and, consequently, an economic improvement due to the increase in the market and the consumption process. On the other hand, Latin American companies and industries do not have the technological capacity or, to a certain extent, a competitive advantage to compete with Chinese products in the long term, due to the stricter labour laws in American countries, compared to the Asian country. Hence, one of Brazil’s possible strategies for meeting the challenges of expanding relations with China is to invest in greater complementarity and structural integration of the region through MERCOSUR.

-

-

-

-