Protective Integration and Security Policy Coordination: Comparing the SCO and CSTO

Allison, Roy

doi:10.1093/cjip/poy008

Cited by 55 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12. On the SCO and its security agenda and development, see Allison (2018), Aris (2011), Bailes (2007), Brummer (2007), and Obydenkova and Libman (2019). On the China's role in regional and global governance, see Hameiri and Jones (2018), Ikenberry (2008), and Medeiros and Fravel (2003), and .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global governance and Eurasian international organisations: lessons learned and future agenda

Libman

Obydenkova

2020

Post-Communist Economies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper summarises the findings of this special issue and suggests avenues for future research. It concludes that the Eurasian regionalisms' development in the 2010s was influenced, among other factors, by Russia's concerns about external threats and by its control over the Eurasian space. However, the design of the regional institutions does not make them incompatible with global governance. The cooperation between global and regional institutions varies depending on the agenda of the specific regional organisation. In addition to direct competition between global and regional institutions, there may be an indirect one through offering access to different forms of economic benefits. Through this indirect strategy, regional institutions may reduce the incentives for individual countries to comply with their obligations to global institutions. This paper also places Eurasia within a global context of analysis and considers similar trends worldwide as well as outlines the agenda for future studies of global versus regional governance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global governance and Eurasian international organisations: lessons learned and future agenda

Libman

Obydenkova

2020

Post-Communist Economies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To challenge Western interventionism, Beijing and Moscow have made significant contributions to regime legitimacy in Central Asia (Trenin, 2015). The CSTO and the SCO are, thus, to be seen as an establishment of hierarchical security relationships under Russian and Sino-Russian leadership respectively (Allison, 2018). In addition, two development projects are discernible in the economic domain: (1) the EAEU, which notably contributes to the economic consolidation of Russia and (2) the launch of the BRI as a Chinese attempt to enhance the economic development in Central Asia.…”

Section: Kazakhstan and The Sino-russian Entente: Redefining The Bargmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s engagement with Kazakhstan and Russia’s Zugzwang: Why is Nur-Sultan incurring regional power hedging?

Ohle

Cook

Han

2020

Journal of Eurasian Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grappling with the contemporary topos of a Sino-Russian Entente, Kazakhstan is caught between a delicate long-term peer-competition and potentially a structural rivalry involving the two Eurasian Leviathans, China and Russia. Acknowledging this perspective, Nur-Sultan is inducing hedging dynamics, fishing for a better range of net benefits, while playing a significant fulcrum role central to the regional geopolitical and geo-economic matrix. Although Russia is retaining the prevailing role in the security domain, China is catching up with Russia in various economic indices, notably generated by the Belt and Road Initiative. Utilizing the conceptualization of hierarchy in international relations adapted from the work of David A. Lake, this paper outlines how Nur-Sultan’s interests and preferences are acknowledged by the respective dominants, as a basis for social contracting processes to generate a dual hierarchical order in Central Asia.

show abstract

“…More recently, Russia has strived to build new secondary institutions in cooperation with neighbouring countries in Eurasia, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (hereafter SCO) and the CSTO. While Russia has actively led the development of these secondary institutions, Allison () argues that their primary role has been to promote what he calls ‘protective integration’, that is, the safeguarding of regime security, suggesting that multilateral policy coordination and the cultivation of a shared regional identity, or ‘thin multilateralism’ and ‘thick multilateralism’ in Adler’s (, p. 146) terms respectively, within these secondary institutions have been of secondary importance for the participating countries, including Russia. Russia has also used these secondary institutions to reinforce its status as a regional hegemon, especially in the case of the CSTO.…”

Section: Russia’s Approach To Multilateralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multipolarity and the Future of Multilateralism: Towards ‘Thick’ Peacekeeping in the Donbas Conflict

Hadano

2020

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to research on the relationship between multipolarity and multilateralism. One aim of this article is to consider the role of multilateralism in the age of multipolarity by investigating Russia's approach to multilateralism, especially in the context of the Donbas conflict. Russia has been a staunch supporter of a polycentric world order. Thus, an analysis of its attitude towards multilateralism provides insights into the role of multilateralism in the emerging multipolar world. It will be argued that, while convergence of interests and equal participation of states cannot be assumed in the age of multipolarity, multilateralism can still facilitate policy coordination among states, including rising powers, and provide legitimacy to their policy decisions. Another aim is to explore what peacekeepingan international practice reflective of multilateralismcan deliver in the multipolarising world. This article examines recent debates over the deployment of a peacekeeping mission to eastern Ukraine and argues that peacekeeping can not only help achieve security policy coordination among states, including rising powers, but also help create a common diplomatic culture and hence a sense of we-feeling among them, which may in turn develop into an inclusive regional security framework.

show abstract

Protective Integration and Security Policy Coordination: Comparing the SCO and CSTO

Cited by 55 publications

References 29 publications

Global governance and Eurasian international organisations: lessons learned and future agenda

Global governance and Eurasian international organisations: lessons learned and future agenda

China’s engagement with Kazakhstan and Russia’s Zugzwang: Why is Nur-Sultan incurring regional power hedging?

Multipolarity and the Future of Multilateralism: Towards ‘Thick’ Peacekeeping in the Donbas Conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About