Национални интерес 3/2021

ЕПИСТЕМИЧКЕ ЗАЈЕДНИЦЕ У ОБЛАСТИ КОНТРОЛЕ НУКЛЕАРНОГ НАОРУЖАЊА КАО СУБЈЕКТИ БЕЗБЕДНОСТИ

Аутори
УДКУДК 341.678 Стране137-165 Година2021
Преузми PDF 10.22182/ni.4032021.6
Преглед истраживања

Сажетак

ТРад се бави применом концепта епистемичких заједница у области безбедности, са циљем да се идентификују епистемичке заједнице у домену контроле нуклеарног наоружања, укаже на практичне импликације њиховог деловања, али истовремено испита и аналитичка вредност концепта. На темељу прагматичног конструктивизма, као теоријског оквира рада, указује се на делатни потенцијал епистемичких заједница, као актера безбедности, као и на њихову трансформативну улогу, као генератора промена на практично-политичкој равни. Посматрано шире, из визуре свеобухватног приступа безбедности, ширење дијапазона безбедносних проблема, њихово усложњавање и прожимање, подразумева активну улогу нових и све бројнијих актера, односно субјеката безбедности, али и умножавање објеката заштите, те се епистемичке заједнице, као синтеза организација цивилног друштва, научних института, независних експерата, представника универзитета и академске заједнице, могу посматрати и као специфични субјекти безбедности. Ауторка закључује да, по угледу на успешан пример контроле нуклеарног наоружања, бавећи се и другим безбедносним проблемима, епистемичке заједнице могу развијати и унапређивати безбедносне политике и праксе. Стога се у теоријском смислу, релевантност истраживања огледа у тематизацији безбедносних епистемичких заједница, кроз специфичну примену концепта на област контроле нуклеарног наоружања, чиме се уједно подстиче даља разрада концепта, нарочито у области безбедности.

Извори и литература

Референце

  1. Adler, Emanuel. 1991. ”Cognitive evolution: a dynamic approach for the study of international relations and their progress.” In Progress in Postwar International Relations, eds. Emanuel Adler and Beverly Crawford, 43-87. New York: Columbia University Press.
  2. Adler, Emanuel. 1992. ”The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control.” International organization, 46 (1): 101-145.
  3. Adler, Emanuel. 1997. ”Imagined (security) communities: cognitive regions in international relations.” Millennium 26 (2): 249-277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298970260021101.
  4. Adler, Emanuel. 2005. Communitarian international relations: the epistemic foundations of international relations. New York: Routledge.
  5. Adler, Emanuel. 2008. ”The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint and NATO’s Post-Cold War Transformation.” European journal of international relations 14 (2): 195-230. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108089241.
  6. Adler, Emanuel, and Peter M. Haas. 1992. ”Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program.” In Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination, ed. Peter M. Haas, 367-390. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  7. Adler, Emanuel, Michael Barnett, and Steve Smith, eds. 1998. Security communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Alcañiz, Isabella. 2004. ”Ideas, Epistemic Communities and Regional Integration: Splitting the Atom in Argentina and Brazil.” PhD diss. Northwestern University.
  9. Baark, Erik, and Joseph Strahl. 1995. ”The Response of International Organizations to the Environmental Challenge: The Case of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).” Development and Change 26 (3): 441–468. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00561.x.
  10. Barth, Kai-Henrik. 2006. ”Catalysts of Change: Scientists as Transnational Arms Control Advocates in the 1980s.” Osiris 21 (1): 182–206. doi: 10.1086/507141.
  11. Christiansen, Poul-Erik, and Dan Plesch. 2010. ”Disarmament Education and Epistemic Communities: A Weapons of Mass Destruction-Free Zone in the Middle East.” Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture 16 (3/4): 57-66.
  12. Cross, Mai’A Davis K. 2013. ”The military dimension of European security: an epistemic community approach.” Millennium 42 (1): 45-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829813497821.
  13. Cross, Mai’A Davis K. 2015. ”The limits of epistemic communities: EU security agencies.” Politics and Governance 3 (1): 90-100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i1.78.
  14. Drake, William J. and Kalypso Nicolaïdis. 1992. ”Ideas, Interests, and Institutionalization: ”trade in services” and the Uruguay Round.” In Knowledge, power and international policy coordination, ed. Peter M. Haas, 37–100. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  15. Dunlop, Claire A. 2014. ”The possible experts: how epistemic communities negotiate barriers to knowledge use in ecosystems services policy.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (2): 208-228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/c13192j.
  16. Dunlop, Claire A. 2017. ”The irony of epistemic learning: Epistemic communities, policy learning and the case of Europe’s hormones saga.” Policy and Society 36 (2): 215-232. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1322260.
  17. Faleg, Giovanni. 2011. ”Evolution through learning? Epistemic communities and the emergence of Security Sector Reform (SSR) in European security cooperation.” Paper presented at the Twelfth biennial international conference, Panel Session Three-The EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy, March 3-5, Boston, Massachusetts.
  18. Finnemore, Martha. 1994. ”International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.”
    International Organization 47 (4): 565–597.
  19. Gordon, Mordechai. 2009. ”Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice.” Educational studies 45 (1): 39-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131940802546894.
  20. Gough, Clair, and Simon Shackley. 2001. ”The respectable politics of climate change: the epistemic communities and NGOs.” International affairs 77 (2): 329-346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00195.
  21. Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. ”A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International
    Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 147-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066100006002001.
  22. Haas, Ernst B. 1975. “Is there a Hole in the Whole? Knowledge, Technology,
    Interdependence and the Construction of International Regimes.” International
    Organization, 29 (3): 827-876.
  23. Haas, Ernst B. 1990. When Knowledge is Power:
    Three Models of Change in International Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  24. Haas, Ernst B. 2004. ”Introduction: institutionalism or constructivism?” In The Uniting of Europe. South Bend, Indiana: Notre Dame Press.
  25. Haas, Peter M. 1989. ”Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Community and Mediterranean Pollution Control”. International Organization 46 (1): 377-403.
  26. Haas, Peter M. 1990. Saving the Mediterranean: The politics of international environmental cooperation. US: Columbia University Press.
  27. Haas, Peter M. 1992а. ”Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone.” In Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination, ed. Peter M. Haas, 187–224. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  28. Haas, Peter M. 1992b. ”Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” In Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination, ed. Peter M. Haas, 1–35. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  29. Haas, Peter M., ed. 1992c. Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  30. Haas, Peter M. 2016. Epistemic communities, constructivism and international environmental politics. London: Routledge.
  31. Haas, Peter M., and Ernst B. Haas. 1995. “Learning to Learn: Improving International
    Governance.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 1(3): 255-285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-.
  32. Haas, Peter M., and Ernst B. Haas. 2002. ”Pragmatic constructivism and the study of international institutions.” Millennium 31 (3): 573-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031001.
  33. Howorth, Jolyon. 2004. ”Discourse, ideas, and epistemic communities in European security and defence policy.” West European Politics 27 (2): 211-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0140238042000214883.
  34. Ikenberry, John G. 1992. ”A World Economy Restored: Expert Consensus and the Anglo-American Postwar Settlement.” In Knowledge, power, and international policy coordination, ed. Peter M. Haas, 289–321. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  35. Jentry, Corey. 2017. ”The trouble with studying the troubles: how and why an epistemic community emerges.” PhD diss. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
  36. Keković, Zoran, i Ivan Dimitrijević. 2017. Sistemi bezbednosti sa sistemom bezbednosti Republike Srbije. Beograd: Fakultet bezbednosti.
  37. Kourtelis, Christos. 2020. ”The role of epistemic communities and expert knowledge in the European neighbourhood policy.” Journal of European Integration 42 (6): 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1739031.
  38. Kutchesfahani, Sara Zahra. 2010. ”Politics and the bomb: Exploring the role of epistemic communities in nuclear non-proliferation outcomes.” PhD diss. UCL-University College London, Department of Political Science.
  39. Lidskog, Rolf and Göran Sundqvist. 2002. ”The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of LRTAP.” European Journal of International Relations 8 (1): 77–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066102008001003.
  40. Litfin, Karen T. 1995. ”Framing Science: Precautionary Discourse and the Ozone Treaties.” Millennium Journal of International Studies 24 (2): 251–277. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298950240020501.
  41. Maas, Matthijs M. 2019. ”How viable is international arms control for military artificial intelligence?Three lessons from nuclear weapons.” Contemporary Security Policy 40 (3): 285-311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1576464.
  42. Mendelson, Sarah. 1993. “Internal battles and external wars: politics, learning, and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.” World Politics 45 (3): 327-360. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950722.
  43. Mitchell, Neil J., Kerry G. Herron, Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, and Guy D. Whitten. 2007. ”Elite beliefs, epistemic communities and the Atlantic divide: scientists’ nuclear policy preferences in the United States and European Union.” British Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 753-764. doi: 10.1017/S0007123407000403.
  44. Nagel, Jack H. 1975. The Descriptive Analysis of Power. London: Yale University Press.
  45. Novičić, Žaklina. 2005. „Nuklearno oružje u medjunarodnoj politici.” Međunarodna politika 57 (4): 505-528.
  46. Nørreklit, Hanne, ed. 2017. A philosophy of management accounting: A pragmatic constructivist approach. New York: Routledge
  47. .Nørreklit, Hanne, Morten Raffnsøe-Møller, and Falconer Mitchell. 2016. ”A pragmatic constructivist approach to accounting practice and research.” Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 13 (3): 266-277.
  48. Perkins, David. 1999. ”The many faces of constructivism.” Educational leadership 57 (3): 6-11
  49. Petek, Ana. 2006. „Proces odlučivanja u Evropskoj Uniji: analiza policy mreža.” Politička misao 43 (4 ): 85-104.
  50. Phillipps, Jacob. 2018. ”The role of epistemic communities: Local think tanks, international practitioners and security sector reform in Kosovo.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 18 (2): 281-299. doi: ps://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2018.1474553.
  51. Polman, Daniel. 2018. ”Learning from practical experience: implementation epistemic communities in the European Union”, In Learning in Public Policy: Analysis, Modes and Outcomes, eds. Claire A. Dunlop, Claudio M. Radaelli and Philipp Trein,
    123–144. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  52. Radaellli, Claudio M. 2009. “Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in
    Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 16 (8): 1145-1164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760903332647.
  53. Radić-Milosavljević, Ivana. 2016. „Uloga neofunkcionalizma u razumevanju savremene evropske integracije.” U Zbornik najboljih master radova o Evropskoj uniji, 51-67, Beograd: Informacioni centar EU.
  54. Richardson, Jeremy. 1996. “Policy-making in the EU. Interests, ideas, and garbage cans
  55. of primeval soup.” In European Union: Power and Policymaking, ed. Jeremy Richardson, 3-31. Abingdon: Routledge.
  56. Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War.” International Organization 48 (2): 185-214.
  57. Roze, David Ayar. 2016. ”Epistemic Communities and Proliferation: The Implications of Nuclear Knowledge.” Master’s Thesis. City College of New York: Colin Powell school for civic and global leadership.
  58. Ruggie, John Gerard. 1975. ”International responses to technology: concepts and trends.” International organization 29 (3): 557-583.
  59. Ruggie, John Gerard, Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Philippe C. Schmitter. 2005. ”Transformations in world politics: The intellectual contributions of Ernst B. Haas.” Annual Review of Political Science 8 (2005): 271-296. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104843.
  60. Schneiker, Andrea. 2016. Humanitarian NGOs,(in) security and identity: Epistemic communities and security governance. London: Routledge.
  61. Sebenius, James K. 1992. ”Challenging Conventional Explanations of International Cooperation: Negotiation Analysis and the Case of Epistemic Communities.” In Knowledge, power and international policy coordination, ed. Peter M. Haas, 323–365. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
  62. Simić, Dragan R. 2002. Nauka o bezbednosti: savremeni pristupi bezbednosti. Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka.
  63. Sugden, Jennifer. 2006. ”Security sector reform: The role of epistemic communities in the UK.” Journal of Security Sector Management 4 (4): 1-20.
  64. Toke, Dave. 1999. ”Epistemic communities and environmental groups.” Politics 19 (2): 97-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00091.
  65. Verdun, Amy. 1999. “The role of the Delors Committee in the creation of EMU: an
    epistemic community?” Journal of European Public Policy 6 (2): 308-328. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343739.
  66. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. ”Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (2): 391-425.
  67. Wenger, Etienne. 1999. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Wright, Kevin. 1997. Knowledge and Expertise in European Conventional Arms Control Negotiations: An Epistemic Community? UK: University of Essex.
  69. Zito, Anthony R. 2001. “Epistemic Communities, Collective Entrepreneurship and
    European Integration.” Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4): 585-603. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110064401.
Из истог броја

Повезане публикације