نوع مقاله : مقالات
نویسنده
دانشگاه تهران
چکیده
مطالعه تصمیم‌گیری در سیاست خارجی را نخستین گام برای شناخت معناها و پیچیدگی‌های کنش در نظام بین‌الملل می‌دانند. در این میان بحث در مورد تصمیمات عقلانی و غیر عقلانی مجادلات فکری متعددی را در پی داشته است؛ گروهی بر تعریف تصمیات عقلانی و برخی دیگر بر لیست کردن آن چه غیر عقلانی است، تاکید دارند. فارغ از مجادلات فوق، هدف این پژوهش پرداختن به محدودیت‌ها و موانع موجود بر سر راه تحقق نوع آرمانی الگوی عقلانی تصمیم‌گیری در سیاست خارجی است. با این وصف، سوال اصلی پژوهش این است که آیا به لحاظ روش‌شناختی در مقام عمل امکان تحقق مفروضات مدل عقلانی در تصمیم‌گیری سیاست خارجی وجود دارد؟ در پاسخ به سوال فوق با اتکای به روش اسنادی در گردآوری داده‌ها و همچنین به کارگیری روش تحلیلی، نگارنده معتقد است مدل عقلانی در حوزه روش شناختی با سه دسته از محدودیت‌ها و موانع محیطی، شناختی و همچنین عصبی و عاطفی مواجه است که مانع از تحقق عقلانیت کامل در تصمیم‌گیری‌های سیاست خارجی می‌شود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Resources
Allison, G. T. (1986). Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Tehran: Cultural and scintific publication company. (in Persian)
Brecher, M. (1972). The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Setting, Images, Process. Yale University Press.
Bueno, M. B., & Lalman, D. (1990). Domestic Opposition and Foreign War. American Political Science Review, 84(1), 747-765.
Bueno, M. B., & Lalman, D. (1992). War and Reason. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.
Bueno, M. B. (1983). The Costs of War: a Rational Expectations Approach. American Political Science Review, 77(3), 347-57.
Bueno, M. B. (1989). The Contribution of Expected-Utility Theory to the Study of International Conflict: in Handbook of War Studies, ed. Manus I. Midlarsky. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cohen, J. D. (2005) the Vulcanization of the Human Brain: a Neural Perspective on Interactions between Cognition and Emotion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), P 3-24.
Dacey, R., & Carlson, l. (2004). Traditional Decision Analysis and Poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making. Journal of conflict resolution, 48(1), 38-55.
Dehghani firoozabadi, S. J. (2009). Critical Theory framework for analyzing the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Political Science, 3(2), 125-162.
Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (2010). Contending theories of international relations. Tehran: Ghoomes publication. (in Persian)
Eysenck, M. W., & Kain, M. (2011). Cognitive psychology. Tehran: Ayiizh publication. (in Persian)
Frankel, J. (1998). Contemporary theory of international relations. Tehran: Information publication. (in Persian)
George, A. L. (1969). The Operational Code; a Neglected Approach to the Study of Political Leaders and Decision-Making, International Studies Quarterly, 13(2), 190-222.
George, A. L. (1993). Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice. United States Institute of Peace Press.
Ghavam, S. A. A. (2006). Principles of foreign policy and international politics. Tehran: SAMT publication. (in Persian)
Gustavsson, J. (1999). How Should We Study Foreign Policy Change? Cooperation and Conflict, 34(1), 173-95.
Hay, C. (2007). Critical Introduction to Political Analysis. Tehran: Ney publication. (in Persian)
Heywood, A. (2011). Politics. Tehran: Ney publication. (in Persian)
Hill, C. (2009). The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy. Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. (in Persian)
Iman, M. T. (2010). Basics of qualitative and quantitative research methods in the humanities paradigm. Qom: research institute of hawzah & university. (in Persian)
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: an Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
Kharrazze, S. K., & dowlati, R. (2010). A Guide book for cognitive psychology and cognitive science. Tehran: Iranian Stuedent Book Agency. (in Persian)
Kuhn, T. S. (1991). The Structure of scientific revolutions. Tehran: Soroush publication. (in Persian)
Levy, J. (2000). Loss Aversion, Framing Effects and International Conflict: Perspectives, on Prospect Theory. in Handbook of War Studies II, ed. ManusMidlarsky. Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan Press.
Libet, B. (2005). Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness. (Perspectives in Cognitive Neuroscience). Harvard University Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517-526.
Little, D. (2010). Explanation in the social sciences. Tehran: Serat publication. (in Persian).
McDermott, R. (2004). The Feeling of Rationality: the Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 691-706
Mintz, A., & Deroen, K. (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge University Press.
Mintz, A., & Geva, N. (1997). Poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making, in N. Geva and Mintz. Decision making on war and peace. Boulder. Co: Lynn Rienner.
Mintz, A. (2004). How do leaders make decision; a poliheuristic perspective. Journal of conflict resolution, 48(1), 3-13.
Pollack, Mark A. (2007). Rational Choice and EU Politics. In Handbook of European Union Politics, ed. Knud Erik Jorgensen, Mark Pollack, and Ben J. Rosamond. New York, NY: Sage pubication.
Rosenberg, S. W. (1995). Against Neoclassical Political Economy; a Political Psychological Critique. Political Psychology, 16(1), 99-136.
Saadat. E. (1991). Criss Management. Journal of management knowledge, 1(11). 20-30. (in Persian)
Saadat. E. (1994). Decision-making process in the organization. Tehran: Tehran University Press. (in Persian)
Simon, H. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Snyder, R. et al., (2011). Foreign policy decision making. Tehran: Mizan publication. (in Persian).
Stein Bruner, J. (1974). The cybernetic theory of Decision; New Dimension of Political Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stein, J. G. (2005). Foreign policy decision- making: rational, psychological, and neurological models see in:
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199215294/smith_ch06.pdf;
Stein, J. G., & David A. Welch. (1997). Rational and Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Conflict: Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses. in Decision making on War and Peace: the Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. Nehemia Geva and Alex Mintz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Szalai, A. (2008). Rational Choice Theory in Early Cold War: US Defense Policy. The Role of ‘Defense Rationalists. Monograph. Central European University.
Tetlock, P. (2007). Why Foxes Are Better Forecasters Than Hedgehogs; in:
http://longnow.org/seminars/02007/jan/26/why-foxes-are-better-forecasters-than-edgehogs/.
Tetlock, P. E., & Mc Guire, C. J. (1986). Cognitive Perspectives on Foreign Policy. In political bahvior annual Boulder. CO: westview press.
Walker, G. S. (1998). Models of Foreign Policy Decisions: Rivals or Partners? Review by Mershon. International Studies Review. 42(2), 343-345.
Walker, G. S. (2003). Beliefs and Foreign Policy Analysis in the New Millennium. in Millennial, Reflections on International Studies, edited by Michael Brecher & F. P. Harvey. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.
Wittman, Donald. 1979. How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(4), 743-63.
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله