دانلود کتاب مناطق، قدرت و درگیری

This volume focuses on the study of regional international relations. Most of the chapters look at multiple regions and in that sense are comparative. Some chapters focus on a single region but in a way that lends itself to future comparisons. Why should we study these regions? One reason is that international relations scholars have examined monadic (single state), dyadic (state pairs), and systemic (either all states or elite states) levels of analysis. There are gains to be had by each of these approaches. There are also limitations. Ultimately, though, it is difficult to claim that any of these approaches are the only way to go. Regional analysis is not designed to eliminate other approaches. Rather, the idea is to supplement them. With the exception of major powers, monadic states and dyadic pairs of states operate in regional contexts. Rarely, do they exceed regional boundaries in their interactions. Systemic interactions can be genuinely holistic but often they disguise what are regional interactions. Take for example, world wars. We call them world wars because participation is extensive and conflict is widespread. Yet even these world wars tend to selectively focus on regions. World War II might have been a war restricted to two zones: Europe and North Africa and East Asia—that is, three regions at best. It became more complicated when Germany declared war on the United States. The regional theaters fused into one very large war. Even so, the combat remained strongly regional. Similar observations can be made in regard to earlier world wars.
So, one reason is that a lot of activity in international relations takes place within regions. A second reason is that regional analyses can supplement and complement more narrow analyses. When two states in the Middle East clash, the regional context is never absent. Clashes in a region like the Middle East have antecedents and impli-cations in and for the larger region in which they occur. Precisely the same statement can be made about cooperation or conflict in East Africa or Southeast Asia. Why not figure out how to bring the larger context into the analysis?
A third reason for regional analysis has two dimensions. Regions are highly heterogenous places. No two regions seem exactly alike. Part of the reason for this is that they have vastly different path dependencies. Western Europe has a long history of protracted warfare between multiple states that were whittled down to a much smaller number of states after hundred years of combat. East Asia is characterized by fluctuations in centralization and de-centralization, with the size of China and its rule fluctuating accordingly. Sub-Saharan African regions have a history of low population density and therefore less urbanization and a different view on the value of territory than the more crowded West European region. South America has a long history of dependency on exports to first Britain and later the United States. Presumably, these path dependencies can make some difference to the activities we attempt to model in the contemporary period. Rarely, though, do we control for them beyond adding a binary instrument that registers whether a country is or is not in a given region. When we do that, it does not specify what path dependencies we are attempting to control for—nor do we usually pay much attention to the regional variables when they emerge as significant in equations.
Thus, one additional reason is that we do a poor job of capturing path dependencies when we merely assign a binary regional control. If we call it by a proper name or geographical place, we are most likely lumping together multiple path dependencies. What do we mean when we say activity is Middle Eastern, West African, or Central American? At some point, moreover, we need to determine what the proper place names mean so that we can replace them with more precise social scientific variables.
A sixth reason that overlaps with the last two is that international relations is a lumpy topic. We can make generalizations that might fit one part of the world but not another part. How major powers interact may not resemble anything that goes on in half a dozen regions. What goes on in those half a dozen regions may be very dissimilar as well. Why that might be the case requires comparative regional analysis to properly evaluate it.