Conflict, cooperation or competition in the Caspian Sea region: A critical review of the New Great Game paradigm

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES

Caucasus Survey Pub Date : 2020-06-11 DOI:10.1080/23761199.2020.1774856

A. Bayramov

{"title":"Conflict, cooperation or competition in the Caspian Sea region: A critical review of the New Great Game paradigm","authors":"A. Bayramov","doi":"10.1080/23761199.2020.1774856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article critically reviews the New Great Game image of the Caspian Sea region and the assumptions, concepts, and mechanisms (revolving around actors, aims, and motivations) this image is based on. More specifically, this review essay answers the following questions: How does the academic literature interpret the impact of competition between great powers on social, political and economic developments in the Caspian Sea region? Which actors are presented as the dominant players? The essay also introduces the existing criticism of the New Great Game concept and alternatives to it that have already been put forward. By identifying the gaps and limits of existing scholarship, this article offers new avenues for alternative theoretical and empirical interpretations. More specifically, this article argues that the New Great Game literature promotes unsystematic and shallow discussion as it ignores and misunderstands historical, material, political, economic, and normative differences in the Caspian Sea region. Within this discussion, actors, interests, identities, social contexts, and principles are taken to be fixed, i.e. not prone to change or to any sort of adjustment.","PeriodicalId":37506,"journal":{"name":"Caucasus Survey","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23761199.2020.1774856","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Caucasus Survey","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2020.1774856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article critically reviews the New Great Game image of the Caspian Sea region and the assumptions, concepts, and mechanisms (revolving around actors, aims, and motivations) this image is based on. More specifically, this review essay answers the following questions: How does the academic literature interpret the impact of competition between great powers on social, political and economic developments in the Caspian Sea region? Which actors are presented as the dominant players? The essay also introduces the existing criticism of the New Great Game concept and alternatives to it that have already been put forward. By identifying the gaps and limits of existing scholarship, this article offers new avenues for alternative theoretical and empirical interpretations. More specifically, this article argues that the New Great Game literature promotes unsystematic and shallow discussion as it ignores and misunderstands historical, material, political, economic, and normative differences in the Caspian Sea region. Within this discussion, actors, interests, identities, social contexts, and principles are taken to be fixed, i.e. not prone to change or to any sort of adjustment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

里海地区的冲突、合作或竞争:对新大博弈范式的批判性回顾

本文批判性地回顾了里海地区的新大博弈形象，以及该形象所基于的假设、概念和机制(围绕参与者、目标和动机)。更具体地说，这篇评论文章回答了以下问题:学术文献如何解释大国之间的竞争对里海地区社会、政治和经济发展的影响?哪些演员表现为主导角色?本文还介绍了对新大博弈概念的现有批评和已有的替代方案。通过识别现有学术的差距和局限性，本文为替代理论和实证解释提供了新的途径。更具体地说，本文认为新大博弈文献促进了非系统和肤浅的讨论，因为它忽视和误解了里海地区的历史、物质、政治、经济和规范差异。在这个讨论中，参与者、兴趣、身份、社会背景和原则被认为是固定的，即不容易改变或进行任何调整。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Caucasus Survey Arts and Humanities-History

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Caucasus Survey is a new peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary and independent journal, concerned with the study of the Caucasus – the independent republics of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, de facto entities in the area and the North Caucasian republics and regions of the Russian Federation. Also covered are issues relating to the Republic of Kalmykia, Crimea, the Cossacks, Nogays, and Caucasian diasporas. Caucasus Survey aims to advance an area studies tradition in the humanities and social sciences about and from the Caucasus, connecting this tradition with core disciplinary concerns in the fields of history, political science, sociology, anthropology, cultural and religious studies, economics, political geography and demography, security, war and peace studies, and social psychology. Research enhancing understanding of the region’s conflicts and relations between the Russian Federation and the Caucasus, internationally and domestically with regard to the North Caucasus, features high in our concerns.