Content area
Full Text
Introduction
A constructivist approach that focuses on conceptions of sovereignty has great utility for the understanding of Russian foreign policy, not least because such an approach bridges the three major levels of analysis in international politics - the structural level, the unit level and the cognitive level. At the structural level, the international system is experiencing a fundamental transformation in the concept and practice of state sovereignty that cannot be adequately accommodated within the realist paradigm. Systemic level constraints and incentives are in flux, resulting in new conditions for the legitimate exercise of power. At the unit level, individual states divide between those that advocate post-modern forms of sovereignty premised on humanitarian intervention trumping sovereign rights of states, and others that vigorously defend traditional Westphalian notions of absolute sovereignty. Finally, at the cognitive level elites within a single state may hold divergent views on sovereignty, and may seek to frame sovereignty issues for political advantage.
Sovereignty is a key international norm, and the concept has played a major role in Russian foreign policy, and internal politics, in recent years. I will argue that the Russian approach to sovereignty, as reflected in policy statements, remarks by officials and academic studies, reflects a close linkage between Vladimir Putin's recentralizing project domestically, and his reassertion of Russia's position as a great power on the international scene. The enthusiastic reception that Mr Putin's project has received from the Russian elite, and from the general population, suggests that concerns with both domestic and international variants of sovereignty predate him, but have received new impetus under Putin's authoritarian, aggressive leadership.
The first task is to provide a general definition of sovereignty, and then outline the realist and constructivist takes on the concept. Although the argument here is that constructivism yields a better understanding of the changing facets of sovereignty, realist perspectives should also be addressed.1 Next, I look at specifically Russian approaches to sovereignty, assessing them from the realist and constructivist positions. A central argument of the article is that, although Western (particularly American) observers of Russian foreign policy and key Russian officials portray Russia's international resurgence largely in realist terms, the constructivist approach used by increasing numbers of Russian (and Russian émigré) scholars, together with Europeans and some...