Delineation of an Optimal Security Perspective for the Caspian Region

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Associate Professor of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD, Political Geography, Department of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

چکیده

The security-based futurology of political units is a type of futurology focusing on geographic areas to assess their security status in the future. The Caspian region as one of the regions facing various factors has gained geopolitical significance, has a wide range of probable futures. The operational objective of this study is to identify the criteria affecting the security of this region and its final objective is to delineate an optimal security-based future for the region through a future study approach. It is a qualitative case study being formulated based on some qualitative and quantitative models and the relevant literature is used as the basis for classifying security standards into six groups of military, economic, spatial, sociocultural, political and environmental. the results were used to present 18 criteria of this region security. Then, 26 questionnaires were distributed among a group of faculty members of geopolitics from the universities of Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The collected data were analyzed using the combined mean TOPSIS method and key criteria of the Caspian region security were extracted. The findings indicated that the three key criteria of joint military and weapons investment, commercial relations and human development as the most critical geopolitical criteria of security in this region formed eight security scenarios and finally the scenario based on ‘regional joint military and weapons investment, free trade, and the homogeneous human development’ with higher scores were introduced as the criterion for the delineation of security perspective for the leaders of countries in this region.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Delineation of an Optimal Security Perspective for the Caspian Region

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf 1
  • Majid Gholami 2
1 Associate Professor of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD, Political Geography, Department of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The security-based futurology of political units is a type of futurology focusing on geographic areas to assess their security status in the future. The Caspian region as one of the regions facing various factors has gained geopolitical significance, has a wide range of probable futures. The operational objective of this study is to identify the criteria affecting the security of this region and its final objective is to delineate an optimal security-based future for the region through a future study approach. It is a qualitative case study being formulated based on some qualitative and quantitative models and the relevant literature is used as the basis for classifying security standards into six groups of military, economic, spatial, sociocultural, political and environmental. the results were used to present 18 criteria of this region security. Then, 26 questionnaires were distributed among a group of faculty members of geopolitics from the universities of Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The collected data were analyzed using the combined mean TOPSIS method and key criteria of the Caspian region security were extracted. The findings indicated that the three key criteria of joint military and weapons investment, commercial relations and human development as the most critical geopolitical criteria of security in this region formed eight security scenarios and finally the scenario based on ‘regional joint military and weapons investment, free trade, and the homogeneous human development’ with higher scores were introduced as the criterion for the delineation of security perspective for the leaders of countries in this region.     

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Security
  • Caspian Region
  • Futurology
  • geopolitical criteria
  • Scenario
  1.  References

    1. Azhgaliyeva, D. (2019). Assessing Energy Security in Caspian Region: The Geopolitical Implications to European Energy Strategy. ScholarBank@ NUS Repository, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.25540/8B8T-EWDR
    2. Baldwin, D. (1995). ‘Security Studies and End of the Cold War’, World Politics, Vol. 48, No1.
    3. Bastide, L. (2017). Future now: “preparedness” and scenario planning in the United States.
    4. Bayramov, A (2021). ‘Conflict, cooperation or competition in the Caspian Sea region: A critical review of the New Great Game paradigm’, Caucasus Survey, 9:1, 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/23761199.2020.1774856.
    5. Beeson, M. (2014). Regionalism and globalization in East Asia: politics, security and economic development, Macmillan International Higher Education.
    6. Benner, E. (2001). ‘Is There a Core National Doctrine?’, Nations and Nationalism, No 2.
    7. Buzan, B. (2006). ‘The 'War on Terrorism' as the New 'Macro-Securitization '?’, Oslo Workshop. Oslo.
    8. Colin S. G. (1988). The Geopolitics of Super Power, Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
    9. Davis, J. W. (2016). Dialogue with Arnold Wolfers (1892–1968), In The Return of the Theorists (pp. 201-209). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
    10. Devonshire-Ellis, Ch (2018). ‘CROSSING THE CASPIAN - WHERE WATERS LAP UP AGAINST EUROPE, RUSSIA & ASIA’, The New Silk Road Project, Available at: https://www.thenewsilkroadproject.com/writing /2018/7/5/crossing-the-caspian-where-waters-lap-up-against-europe-russia-asia.
    11. Evans, G.; Newnham, J. (2005). The Penguin Dictionary International Relations, Penguin Group.
    12. Flint, C. (2012). Introduction to geopolitics, Routledge.
    13. Gavigan, J. P. (2001). A Practical guide to regional foresight, FOREN Network, SRATA Programmed, European Commission Research Directorate General.
    14. Hafeznia, M.R; Mojtahedzadeh, S; Pirdashti, H. (2019). ‘Characterizing Geopolitical Factors Affecting Establishment of Legal Regime in Caspian Sea’, Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume 15, Issue 1. [In Persian]
    15. Haggett, P (2001). Geography: A Global Synthesis, Prentice Hall.
    16. Hajiabadi, M. (2019). ‘Failure of Geopolitical and Geo-Cultural Commonalities to Integrate Iran and Central Asian Countries’, Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume 14, Issue 52, Winter.
    17. Hammershoj, L.G. (2017). Diagnosis of the Times. Handbook of Anticipation: Theoretical and Applied Aspects of the Use of Future in Decision Making.
    18. Hayashi, Y; Shingo, K. (2017). Scenario Planning of Strategic Policy Making for Foresight. INNOVATION AND MANAGEMENT.
    19. A. (2014). ‘A training ground for professional futurists’, The Futurist, Vol. 48, No. 5.
    20. Homer-Dixon T. (1991). ‘On the threshold: environmental changes as causes of acute conflict’, International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2.
    21. Huntington, S. (1993). ‘The Clash of Civilization’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer.
    22. Kavianifar, P; Sazmand, B. (2016). ‘European Interstate Initiatives before and after Resolution of Nuclear Issue’, Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume:12 Issue: 14. [In Persian]
    23. Knorr, K. E. (2015). On the uses of military power in the nuclear age. Princeton University Press.
    24. Luttwak, E. (1990) (A). ‘From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics: Logic of Conflict, Grammar of Commerce’, The National Interest, No. 20, Summer.
    25. Lutwak, E. (1990) (B). Centroid bodies and dual mixed volumes. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 3(2), 365-391.
    26. Miles, I. (2003). ‘Ten years of Foresight in UK’, THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT – Tokyo, 27-28 Feb.
    27. Miles, I; Keenan, M (2003). Practical Guide to Regional Foresight in the UK, Luxembourg, European Commission.
    28. Mossalanejad, A. (2020). ‘Geopolitical Shift in Power and Security in Southwest Asia’, Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume 16, Issue 59, Summer. [In Persian]
    29. Nyiri, L. (2003). Foresight as a Policy-making Tool, Technology Foresight for Organizers, Ankara, Turkey, December.
    30. O’Sullivan, M.; Subramanian, K. (2015). The End of Globalization or a more Multipolar World. Credit Suisse Research Institute, 14.
    31. Ogilvy, J. (2015). Scenario planning and strategic forecasting. Forbes Online. [online] Available at:< http://www. forbes. com/sites/stratfor/2015/01/08/ scenario-planning-andstrategic-forecasting.
    32. Pradhan, R. (2020). Energy Geopolitics and Pipeline Diplomacy in Central Asia: India’s Interests and Policy Options. Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 24(2), 216–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973598420943434.
    33. Simandan, D. (2018). Wisdom and foresight in Chinese thought: sensing the immediate future. Journal of Futures Studies. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS. 2018.22 (3).00A35.
    34. Snow, N. (2011). Information war: American propaganda, free speech and opinion control since 9-11. Seven Stories Press.
    35. Van Doorn, J. W.; Van Vught, F. A. (1983). Futures research in the Netherlands 1960–1980. Futures, 15(6).
    36. Wæver, O. (2004). ‘New 'Schools' in Security Theory and their Origins between Core and Periphery’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec.
    37. Williams, P. (2012). Security Studies: An Introduction, Abingdon: Routledge.
    38. Yazdanpanah Dero, K. Gholami, M. (2018). ‘Strategic Solutions for Security Doctrine in Geopolitical Transition Period; the Environmental, Economic, Locative-Spatial and Cultural Attitudes’, Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume 13, Issue 48, Autumn. [In Persian]
    39. Zaki, Y; Afzali, R; Pashalou, A. (2015). ‘Geopolitical bottlenecks of Republic of Azerbaijan based on Peter Haggett model’, Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume: 10, No 4, Winter.