首页> 外文期刊>Post-Communist Economies >NATO vs. the CSTO: security threat perceptions and responses to secessionist conflicts in Eurasia
【24h】

NATO vs. the CSTO: security threat perceptions and responses to secessionist conflicts in Eurasia

机译:北约与CSTO:安全威胁观念和对欧亚州的分离主义冲突的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

While there is a growing body of research on the role of international organisations (IOs) in regional security governance, relatively little attention has been paid to IO responses to the secessionist conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh (NK), in Abkhazia/South Ossetia in Georgia as well as in Crimea/Eastern Ukraine. This article explores the differences between NATO's and the CSTO's responses to the three conflicts. Our findings demonstrate that NATO neglected the conflict in NK which stands in sharp contrast to its active responses to the outbreak of war in Georgia (2008) and Crimea/Eastern Ukraine (2014). The CSTO, however, has largely avoided any engagement in all three cases. Three factors were of crucial importance to explain this variation: the level of regional security institutionalisation, both IOs' geostrategic threat perceptions as well as both IOs' mutual perception, hence, their IO-IO (non)relationship.
机译:虽然有一个越来越多的关于国际组织(iOS)在区域安全治理的角色的研究,但对IO对乔治亚州阿布哈兹/南奥塞梯的纳戈尔诺 - 卡拉巴赫(NK)的答复冲突的关注相对较少 以及在克里米亚/东乌克兰。 本文探讨了北约与CSTO对三次冲突的响应之间的差异。 我们的调查结果表明,北约忽视了NK的冲突,这与对乔治亚州(2008年)和克里米亚/东乌克兰东部(2014年)的战争的积极反应鲜明对比。 然而,CSTO在很大程度上避免了所有三种情况的任何参与。 解释这种变异的三个因素至关重要:区域安全制度化水平,iOS的地球格术威胁感觉以及iOS的相互认识,因此,他们的IO-IO(非)关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号