Acknowledgements. The article has been supported by the grant of the IIS MGIMO No. 1921-01-09 “Geopolitical Atlas of the Modern World: Cartograms Modelling, Multidimensional Scaling and Determination of Local Indicators of Spatial Autocorrelation in World Politics”.
Abstract. Security studies are going through a new stage of development. The 20th century was marked by scientific discussions about globalization itself and its possible impact on international security, the need to adjust concepts and methodologies. Many modern challenges are a direct consequence of increased global interdependence. At the same time, global attention is shifting towards regions, because the processes originating there can explain and determine the structure of international security. In turn, it is vital to adopt the knowledge and methodology of regional studies and political geography to avoid the “territorial trap”. In our opinion, international studies are still missing the importance of spatiality and its influence on the world political system. Regardless the importance of geographical factor and the fact that in some way it determines the vector of the world political system development, spatiality is often overlooked. “Thinking in the space” is a skill necessary for any researcher. Spatiality is not just a set of geographical characteristics, but something more integral. Therefore, to understand international security and prospects for its further development, we need a comprehensive approach taking a wide range of factors into account. Moreover, an important problem of modern international security is the lack of comprehensive security studies at the global level that take into account the factor of space and regionalization. The research identifies Regional Security Complexes using cluster analysis of k-means. A spatial autocorrelation analysis is used to justify found systems, which consider the mutual influence of countries on each other. In a nutshell, it can explain regionalization of international security and the role of spatial factor in this process, create methodological framework for further analysis of Regional Security Complexes.
Keywords: international security, regionalization, spatiality, territoriality, regional security complexes, spatial analysis
1. Buzan B., Hanson L. The evolution of international security studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009. 400 p.
2. Walt S. M. International relations: one world, many theories. Foreign Policy, 1998, no. 110, pp. 29-46. DOI: 10.2307/1149275
3. Haftendorn H. The security puzzle: theory-building and discipline-building in international security. International Studies Quarterly, 1991, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 3-17. DOI: 10.2307/2600386
4. Buzan B. Rethinking security after the Cold War. Cooperation and conflict. Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 1997, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5-28. DOI: 10.1177/0010836797032001001
5. Williams P. Transnational criminal organisations and international security. Survival, 1994, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 96-113. DOI:10.1080/00396339408442726
6. Buzan B., Waever O., Wilde de J. Security: A new framework for analysis. London, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998. 239 p.
7. Arbatov A. Uravnenie bezopasnosti [Security Formula]. Moscow, RODP Yabloko, 2010. 296 p.
8. Krause K. Theorizing security, state formation and the “Third World” in the post-Cold War world. Review of International Studies, 1998, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 125-136. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210598001259
9. Buzan B., Waever O. Regions and powers: the structure of international security. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003. 598 p.
10. Hopf T. The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International security, 1998, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 171-200. DOI: 10.2307/2539267
11. Freedman L. International security: changing targets. Foreign Policy, 1998, no. 110, pp. 48-63. DOI: 10.2307/1149276
12. Voskresenskii A.D. Kontseptsii regionalizatsii, regional’nykh podsistem, regional’nykh kompleksov i regional’nykh transformatsii v sovremennykh mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh [Concepts of Regionalization, Regional Subsystems, Regional Complexes and Regional Transformations in Contemporary IR]. Comparative Politics Russia, 2012, no. 2 (8), pp. 30-58. DOI: 10.18611/2221-3279-2012-3-2(8)-30-58
13. Kulagin V.M. Sovremennaya mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost’ [Modern international security]. Moscow, KNORUS, 2012. 432 p.
14. Choucri N. Migration and security: some key linkages. Journal of International Affairs, 2002, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 97-122.
15. Agnew J. The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1994, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 53-80. DOI: 10.1080/09692299408434268
16. O’loughlin J., Anselin L. Bringing geography back to the study of international relations: Spatial dependence and regional context in Africa. International Interactions, 1991, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 29-61. DOI: 10.1080/03050629108434769
17. Vayrynen R. Regional conflict formations: An intractable problem of international relations. Journal of Peace Research, 1984, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 337-359. DOI: 10.1177/002234338402100403
18. Buhaug H., Gates S. The geography of civil war. Journal of Peace Research, 2002, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 417-433.
19. Raleigh C. Seeing the forest for the trees: does physical geography affect a state’s conflict risk? International Interactions, 2010, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 384-410. DOI: 10.1080/03050629.2010.524524
20. Yurgens I.Yu., Dynkin A.A., Baranovskii V.G., eds. Arkhitektura evroatlanticheskoi bezopasnosti [Euro-Atlantic Security Architecture]. Moscow, Ekon-Inform, 2009. 124 p.
21. Timofeev I.N. Formula evroatlanticheskoi bezopasnosti: stabil’noe sderzhivanie i ego al’ternativy [Euro-Atlantic Security Formula: Stable Containment and Alternatives]. Doklad mezhdunarodnogo diskussionnogo kluba “Valdai”, 2017 [Report of the International discussion club “Valdai”, 2017] Available https://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/analytics/formula-evroatlanticheskoy-bezopasnosti-stabilnoe-sderzhivanie-i-ego-alternativy/ (accessed 10.06.2020).
22. Sawada M. Global spatial autocorrelation indices – Moran’s I, Geary’s C and the general cross-product statistic. LPC publications. Available at http://www.lpc.uottawa.ca/publications/moransi/moran.htm (accessed 17.02.2020).
23. Local Spatial Autocorrelation. GeoDa. An Introduction to Spatial Data Analysis. Available at: https://geodacenter.github.io/workbook/6a_local_auto/lab6a.html (accessed 23.12.2019).
24. Anselin L. A local indicator of multivariate spatial association: extending Geary’s C. Geographical Analysis, 2019, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 133-150. DOI: 10.1111/gean.12164
25. Okunev I.Yu. Politicheskaya geografiya [Political geography]. Moscow, Aspekt Press, 2019. 512 p.
26. Rhodes A. Thinking in Space: The Role of Geography in National Security Decision-Making. Texas National Security Review, 2019, vol. 2, no. 1. Available at: https://tnsr.org/2019/11/thinking-in-space-the-role-of-geography-in-national-security-decision-making/ (accessed 03.02.2020).
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX