Теория зависимости: ее разработка и вклад в международные отношения

Ряд ученых в своих последних исследованиях отмечают, что международные отношения – это дисциплина, в основном, сформировавшаяся на основе современного европейского политического опыта и философских воззрений, хотя она предлагает решать международные проблемы. Различные критики указывают на евроцентрический характер теории МО или утверждают, что современная история Европы не может должным образом осветить прошлое и настоящее незападных регионов. Пытаясь превратить МО в дисциплину международного значения, ученые из незападных регионов внесли свой определенный вклад в ее развитие. Это научное направление также стремится предложить более корректное объяснение ситуации, сложившейся в соответствующих регионах. Хотя латиноамериканская теория зависимости не получила широкого признания в качестве полноценной теории МО, в этой статье автор утверждает, что она может внести добавочное знание в эту теорию. Статья разделена на три раздела. В первом разделе излагаются два критических подхода к европоцентризму в международных отношениях и его теориям. Во втором кратко представлены взгляды исследователей, работающих в данном направлении (т.н. Dependentistas – Фернандо Энрике Кардозу и Энцо Фалетто, Руй Марини и Самир Амин, хотя последний и является французом египетского происхождения), а также позиция Экономической комиссии ООН по странам Латинской Америки и Карибского бассейна. В третьем разделе автор доказывает, что теория зависимости может способствовать развитию теории МО тремя способами: (1) признавая, что проблемы и, следовательно, интересы не являются универсальными, она подчеркивает необходимость локальных решений локальных проблем; (2) она позволяет уделить дополнительное внимание нетрадиционным участникам, таким как транснациональные компании и внутригосударственным экономическим/ финансовым группам; (3) она оценивает международную арену в качестве иерархического образования, порожденного соперничеством по линии центр-периферия.

1. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. The Making of Global International Relations: Origins and Evolution of IR at its Centenary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

2. Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Beyond the West.” Millennium Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811406574.

3. Acharya, Amitav. “From Heaven to Earth: ‘Cultural Idealism’ and ‘Moral Realism’ as Chinese Contributions to Global International Relations.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 12, no. 4 (2019): 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poz014.

4. Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 39, no. 3 (2014): 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171.

5. Adar, Gombe, and Rok Ajulu. Globalization and Emerging Trends in African States’ Foreign Policy-Making Process. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.

6. Amin, Samir. Imperialism and Unequal Development. New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1977.

7. Amin, Samir. Maldevelopment: Anatomy of a Global Failure. London: Zed Books, 1990.

8. Anievas, Alexander, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam, eds. Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2015.

9. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case of Subaltern Realism.” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (2003): 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00263.

10. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the Third World.” In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by Stephanie Neumann, 31–54. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

11. Ballestrin, Luciana. “América Latina e o Giro Decolonial”. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política 11 (2013): 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-33522013000200004.

12. Behera, Navnita. “Re-Imagining IR in India.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Reflections on and Beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 92–116. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

13. Beier, Marshall. “Beyond Hegemonic State(ment)s of Nature: Indigenous Knowledge and Non-State Possibilities in International Relations.” In Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class, edited by Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, 82–114. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

14. Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

15. Bizzo, Luiza, and Vitor Lengruber. “African Union: Mbeki’s South Africa Policy for Africa.” Brazilian Journal of African Studies 5, no. 9 (2020): 169–187. https://doi.org/10.22456/2448-3923.97993.

16. Bruyneel, Kevin. The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.–Indigenous Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.

17. Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America Since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

18. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. “The Idea of “International System”: Theory Meets History.” International Political Science Review 15, no. 3 (1994): 231–255.

19. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. “World History and the Development of Non-Western International Relations Theory.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Reflections on and Beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 197–220. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

20. Cardoso, Fernando, and Enzo Faletto. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1979.

21. Cardoso, Fernando. “Notas sobre el Estado Actual de los Estudios sobre Dependencia”. Revista Latinoamerican de Ciencias Sociales 4 (1972): 325-350.

22. Cardoso, Fernando. “The Future of Latin America in the Global Economy. An Interview with Fernando Henrique Cardoso.” International Development Policy 9 (2017): 16–22. https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.2348.

23. Carvalho, Maria. “Estruturas Domésticas e Grupos de Interesse: a Formação da Posição Brasileira para Seattle” [Domestic Structures and Interest Groups: the Formation of the Brazilian Position for Seattle]. Contexto Internacional 25, no. 2 (2003): 363–401. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-85292003000200005. [In Portuguese]

24. Cervo, Amado, and Clodoaldo Bueno. História da Política Exterior do Brasil [History of Brazil’s Foreign Policy]. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2002. [In Portuguese]

25. Chin, Christine. “Claiming Race and Racelessness in International Studies.” International Studies Perspective 10, no. 1 (2009): 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00361.x.

26. Chipaike, Ronald, and Matarutse Knowledge. “The Question of African Agency in International Relations.” Cogent Social Sciences 4, no. 1 (2018): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1487257.

27. Chong, Alan. “Southeast Asia: Theory Between Modernization and Tradition?” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Reflections on and Beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 117–147. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.

28. Cohen, Raymond, and Raymond Westbrook. Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

29. Coulthard, Glen. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014.

30. Do Nascimento, Abdias. Brazil: Mixture or Massacre? Essays in the Genocide of a Black People. Dover: First Majority Press, 1989.

31. Do Nascimento, Abdias. “Quilombismo: An Afro-Brazilian Political Alternative.” Journal of Black Studies 11, no. 2 (1980): 141–178.

32. Du Bois, William E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

33. Du Bois, William E.B. “Black Africa Tomorrow.” Foreign Affairs 17, no. 1 (1938): 100–110. https.doi.org/10.2307/20028906.

34. Du Bois, William E.B. “Inter-Racial Implications of the Ethiopian Crisis: a Negro View.” Foreign Affairs 14, no. 1 (October 1935): 82–92. https.doi.org/10.2307/20030704.

35. Du Bois, William E.B. “Worlds of Color.” Foreign Affairs 3, no. 3 (1925): 423–444. https.doi.org/10.2307/20028386.

36. Escudé, Carlos. El Realismo de los Estados Débiles. Buenos Aires: GEL, 1995.

37. Escudé, Carlos. El Realismo Periférico. Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1992.

38. Filho, Clayton, Rodrigo Gonçalves, and Ariane Déa. “The National Development Plan as a Political Economic Strategy in Evo Morale’s Bolivia: Accomplishments and Limitations.” Latin American Perspectives 37, no. 4 (2010): 177–196.

39. Furtado, Celso. “Development and Stagnation in Latin America: A Structuralist Approach.” Studies in

40. Comparative International Development 1 (1965): 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02800594.

41. Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

42. Grovogui, Siba. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2006.

43. Guimarães, Samuel. Quinhentos Anos de Periferia: uma Contribuição ao Estudo da Política Internacional [Five Hundred Years of Periphery: a Contribution to the Study of International Politics]. Porto Alegre and Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Universidade/UFRGS/Contraponto, 2001. [In Portuguese]

44. Hage, José. “A Teoria da Dependência: Uma Contribuição aos Estudos de Relações Internacionais” [The Dependency Theory: a Contribution to International Relations Studies]. Revista Política Hoje 22, no. 1 (2013): 106–136. [In Portuguese]

45. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968.

46. Inoguchi, Takashi. “Japan, Korea, and Taiwan: Are One Hundred Flowers about to Bloom?” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 86–102. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

47. Jones, Branwen. “‘Good Governance’ and ‘State Failure’: the Pseudo-Science of Statesmen in Our Times.” In Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line, edited by Alexander Anieves, Nivi Manchanda and Robbie Shilliam, 62–80. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2015.

48. Kanet, Roger. “Russia in the New International Order: Theories, Arguments and Debates.” International Politics 49, no. 4 (2012): 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2012.6.

49. Kang, David, and Xinru Ma. “Power Transitions: Thucydides Didn’t Live in East Asia.” The Washington Quarterly 41, no. 1 (2018). 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2018.1445905.

50. Kang, David. East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.

51. Kelly, Liam. Beyond the Bronze Pillars: Envoy Poetry and the Sino-Vietnamese Relationship. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2005.

52. Kvangraven, Ingrid et al. Dialogues on Development. Volume 1: Dependency. New York: Institute for New Economic Thinking, 2017.

53. Lander, Edgardo, ed. A Colonialidade do Saber: Eurocentrismo e Ciências Sociais. Perspectivas LatinoAmericanas [The Coloniality of Knowledge: Eurocentrism and Social Sciences. Latin American Perspectives]. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2005. [In Portuguese]

54. Leichtova, Magda. Misunderstanding Russia: Russian Foreign Policy and the West. Surrey: Ashgate, 2014.

55. Le Melle, Tilden. “Race in International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 10, no. 1 (2009): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00359.x.

56. Lengruber, Vitor. “Russia’s ‘Civilizational’ Foreign Policy (2012-2018): A Neo-Eurasianist Explanation.” In Russia in the Asia-Pacific Conference Proceedings, 248–249. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Federal University, 2020.

57. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

58. Mandela, Nelson. “South Africa’s Future Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 72, no. 5 (1993). 86–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/20045816.

59. Marini, Ruy. Dialéctica de la Dependencia. México: Ediciones Era, 1991.

60. Mazrui, Ali. Africa’s International Relations: the Diplomacy of Dependency and Change. London: Heinemann, 1977.

61. Medeiros, Marcelo et al. “What Does the Field of International Relations Look Like in South America?” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 1 (2016): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600104.

62. Mignolo, Walter. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durnham and London: Duke University Press, 2011.

63. Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf, 1960.

64. Ngcoya, Mvuselelo. “Ubuntu: Toward an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism?” International Political Sociology 9, no. 3 (2015): 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12095.

65. Nkrumah, Kwame. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. New York: International Publishers, 1966.

66. Ofuho, Cirino. “Africa: Teaching IR Where It’s not Supposed to Be.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 71–85. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

67. Oliveira, Amâncio, and Janina Onuki. “Grupos de Interesses e a Política Comercial Brasileira: a Atuação na Arena Legislativa” [Interest Groups and Brazilian Commercial Policy: Performance in the Legislative Arena]. Papéis Legislativo 8 ( 2007): 1–20. [In Portuguese]

68. Oliveira, Marcelo. Mercosul: Atores Políticos e Grupos de Interesses Brasileiros [Mercosur: Political Actors and Brazilian Interest Groups]. São Paulo: Editora UNESP, 2003. [In Portuguese]

69. Oluwaniyi, Oluwatoyin. “The Role of Multinational Oil Corporations (MNOCS) in Nigeria: More Exploitation Equals Less Development of Oil-Rich Niger Delta Region.” Brazilian Journal of African Studies 3, no. 6 (2018): 143–162.

70. Otusanya, Olatunde. “The Role of Multinational Companies in Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance: the Case of Nigeria.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22, no. 3 (2011): 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.10.005.

71. Ragionieri, Rodolfo. “The Amarna Age: An International Society in the Making.” In Amarna Diplomacy: the Beginnings of International Relations, edited by Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, 42–53. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

72. Schoeman, Maxi. “South Africa: Between History and a Hard Place.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 53–70. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

73. Sergounin, Alexander. “Russia: IR at a Crossroads.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 223–241. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

74. Shkaratan, Ovsey. “The Eurasian Vector of Russia’s Development.” In the Eurasian Project and Europe: Regional Discontinuities and Geopolitics, edited by David Lane and Vsevolod Samokhvalov, 25–37. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

75. Silva, André, and Isadora Silveira. “Da ALCA à CELAC: o Brasil e os Desafios da Integração Continental” [From the FTAA to CELAC: Brazil and the Challenges of Continental Integration]. Brazilian Journal of International Relations 1, no. 3 (2012): 425–447. https://doi.org/10.36311/2237-7743.2012.v1n3.p424-447. [In Portuguese]

76. Smith, Karen. “Contrived Boundaries, Kinship and Ubuntu: a (South) African View of ‘the International.’” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by Arlene Tickner and David Blaney, 301–321. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2012.

77. Solovyev, Eduard. “Geopolitics in Russia – Science or Vocation?” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 37, no. 1 (2004): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2003.12.009.

78. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

79. Tickner, Arlene, and David Blaney. “Introduction: Thinking Difference.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by Arlene Tickner and David Blaney, 1–24. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2012.

80. Tickner, Arlene. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4 (2003(a)): 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/1528-3577.404001.

81. Tickner, Arlene. “Latin America: Still Policy Dependent after all these Years?” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 32–52. Abingdon and New York: Routledge, 2009.

82. Tickner, Arlene. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2003(b)): 295–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301.

83. Tsygankov, Andrei. Russia’s Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity in National Identity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.

84. Tsygankov, Andrei. “In the Shadow of Nikolai Danilevskii: Universalism, Particularism, and Russian Geopolitical Theory.” Europe-Asia Studies 69, no. 4 (2017): 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2017.1335691.

85. Tsygankov, Andrei. “Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008): 762–775.

86. Valenzuela, Samuel, and Arturo Valenzuela. “Modernization and Dependency: Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment.” Comparative Politics 10, no. 4 (1978): 535–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/421571.

87. Van Wyk, Jo-Ansie. “South Africa’s Post-Apartheid Foreign Policy: a Constructivist Analysis.” Politeia 23, no. 3 (2004): 103–136.

88. Vigevani, Tullo, and Gabriel Capulini. Brazilian Foreign Policy in Changing Times: the Quest for Autonomy from Sarney to Lula. New York: Lexington Books, 2009.

89. Viotti, Paul, and Mark Kauppi. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. New York: Pearson Education, 2012.

90. Walker, Rob. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

91. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979.

92. Zeleza, Paul. Rethinking Africa’s Globalization. Volume 1: The Intellectual Challenges. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.46272/2409-3416-2021-9-1-32-49