ارزیابی پارلمان‌گرایی چندجانبه در همگرایی منطقه‌ای اوراسیا

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مطالعات منطقه‌ای، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

2 استاد، گروه مطالعات منطقه‌ای، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

فرازوفرودهای همگرایی منطقه‌ای و عوامل مؤثر بر آن در حوزۀ کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود مانند هر منطقۀ دیگر از جهان مورد توجه پژوهشگران منطقه‌ای و فرامنطقه‌ای بوده است. اگرچه در دهۀ 1990 طرح کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود نتوانست انتظارها را برآورده کند و حجم گسترده‌ای از همکاری پدید آورد. باوجود این وضعیت رهبران کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود با الهام از سازوکارهای موجود همگرایی منطقه‌ای در مناطق دیگر جهان روند همگرایانۀ خاص خود را دنبال کرده‌اند. بر این اساس، کانون تمرکز مقاله پیش رو، واکاوی میزان نقش‌‌آفرینی پارلمان‌گرایی چندجانبه در چارچوب مجمع بین­پارلمانی در فرایند همگرایی منطقه‌ای اوراسیا است. در این زمینه، با بیان زمینه و پیشینۀ پژوهش، جایگاه پارلمان‌گرایی چندجانبه در فرایند همگرایی منطقه‌ای، رابطۀ بین نظام سیاسی و پارلمان‌گرایی چندجانبه، یکی از کارکردهای ویژۀ مجمع میان‌پارلمانی کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود یعنی تدوین قوانین نمونه در تسهیل فرایند همگرایی منطقه‌ای کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود توضیح داده می‌شود. افزون بر این، تشکیل­نشدن سازوکار پارلمانی در اتحادیۀ اقتصادی اوراسیا علت‌کاوی می‌شود. بدین ترتیب، این پرسش مطرح می‌شود که پارلمان‌گرایی چندجانبه در کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود چه تأثیری بر همگرایی منطقه‌ای در این منطقه دارد؟ برای پاسخ به این پرسش از روش تحلیل مقایسه‌ای با بهره‌گیری از داده‌های کتابخانه‌ای و اسنادی استفاده می‌کنیم. بر این اساس، استدلال می‌شود در حوزۀ اوراسیا، چنانچه سازوکارهای همگرایی منطقه‌ای همچون پارلمان‌گرایی چندجانبه، علاوه بر رونق اقتصادی بیشتر در منطقه، ثبات سیاسی کشورهای عضو را تضمین کنند، از سوی کشورهای مستقل هم‌سود در جهت تسهیل همگرایی منطقه‌ای مورد حمایت قرار می‌گیرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing Multilateral Parliamentarism in Eurasian Regional Integration

نویسندگان [English]

  • Gholamreza Khademi 1
  • Sayed Davood Aghaee 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Regional Studies Department, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran
2 Professor, Regional Studies Department, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: The ups and downs of regional integration and the factors affecting it in the field of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries, like any other region of the world, have been considered by regional and trans-regional researchers. However, in the 1990s, the CIS project failed to meet expectations and generated widespread cooperation. Despite this situation, the leaders of the CIS, inspired by the existing mechanisms of regional integration in other parts of the world, have followed their own integration trend. Accordingly, the focus of the present article is to analyze the extent to which multilateral parliamentarism is being mapped within the framework of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in the Eurasian regional integration process.  In this regard, by stating the background and background of the research, the place of multilateral parliamentarism in the process of regional convergence, the relationship between the political system and multilateral parliamentarism, one of the special functions of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS is to formulate model laws to facilitate the regional convergence process of the CIS is described. In addition, the lack of a parliamentary mechanism in the Eurasian Economic Union is explained.
Research Question: Accordingly, the question arises that what effect does multilateral parliamentarism in the CIS have on regional integration in the region?
Research Hypothesis: In this context, using the method of comparative analysis and using library and documentary data, it is argued in the field of Eurasia that if regional integration mechanisms such as multilateral parliamentarism in addition to greater economic prosperity in the region, to ensure the political stability of the member states, is supported by the CIS to facilitate regional integration.
Methodology (and Theoretical Framework if there are): Therefore, the study of the functions of the inter-parliamentary organizations of the CIS as a complex issue requires the use of comparative methods and analysis using library and documentary data. Comparison is a useful way to identify the distinct functions of multilateral parliamentarism in regional integration in independent states, given the characteristics of political systems and the experiences of different regions of the world. In the context of the cognition obtained from this comparison, the expectations of multilateral parliamentarism in regional integration in different regions are adjusted or limited.
Results and discussion: According to what was said, although the CIS utilizes all regional mechanisms -such as the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly- to consolidate its political systems, however, the process of influencing the inter-parliamentary assembly in the framework of multilateral parliamentarism on regional convergence is a positive but weak facilitator. Because the process of regional integration within the framework of the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union has taken shape in different circumstances from regional integration in Europe as follows:
-Regional integration in Europe has evolved on the pervasive idea of interdependence, while in the CIS it is limited to individuals based on the economic and political interests of its members.
-The democratic component of political systems, which creates and develops regional integration in Europe, is a key factor. On the other hand, prioritizing the preservation of national sovereignty in the ruling presidential and authoritarian political systems in Eurasia undermines any mechanisms arising from regional integration, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly.
-The success of regional integration is almost entirely possible in almost equal countries. In Eurasia, evidence suggests that repulsive power has acted as a slowing factor in advancing the regional integration process compared to the gravitational pull of the powerful Russian state in its interaction with other countries in the region.
-In addition, part of the manifestations of regional convergence, such as economic interactions seen in the CIS, are left over from the Soviet Union.
-Under these conditions, the modeling of Eurasia from Europe in the framework of the formation of various institutions has remained less effective in terms of form and more in terms of content and performance.
-Accordingly, to pursue a policy of balance based on the facts prevailing in Eurasia on the basis of institutionalism is a logical choice not only for those who agree, but also for those who oppose skepticism in the CIS.
Conclusion: Of course, the facts governing the institutional mechanisms of the CIS, including the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, do not preclude some collective benefits for its members. They maintain a certain level of symbolic unity in the post-Soviet space, which has a significant psychological impact on the elites of each country. One of the main goals of the mentioned inter-parliamentary assemblies is the integration of the member states through the creation of a single legal space. The set of interactions is assessed by the development of model laws by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS facilitating regional integration in the form of a common legal framework for economic activity, which ultimately contributed to the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
  • Inter-Parliamentary Assembly
  • Model laws
  • political system
  • Regional Integration
Chaitep, Wannapat (2013), Theorising Parliamentary Diplomacy: A Case Study on the Thai Senate as a Diplomatic Actor, University of Surrey, UK: Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences (FAHS), A Thesis Submittedas a Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).
Costa, Oliver, Dri, Clarissa and Stavridis, Stelios (2013), Parliamentary Dimensions of Regionalization and Globalization, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cutler, Robert M. (2001), The Emergence of International Parliamentary Institutions: New Networks of Influence in World Society, in Gordon S. Smith and Daniel Wolfish (2001), Who Is Afraid of the State? Canada in a World of Multiple Centres of Power, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Czerewacz-Filipowicz, Katarzyna and Konopelko, Agnieszka (2017), Regional Integration Processes in the Commonwealth of Independent States, Cham: Springer.
Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal (2014), Theories of Regional Integration and International Regimes, Tehran: Mokhatab. [in Persian].
Dragneva, Rilka and Hartwell, Christopher A. (2020), “The Eurasian Economic Union: Integration without Liberalisation?”, Post-Communist Economies, Vol. 33, No. 2-3, pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2020.1793586
Evgenievich, Narishkin Sergey (2012), “Towards a new parliamentary dimension of Eurasian integration”, Journal of Russian Law, Vol. 8, No.188, pp. 5-15.
Ivanovna, Balakireva Vera (2002), Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS as an International Institution of Political Consolidation, St. Petersburg: University of St. Petersburg.
Jancic, Davor (2015), “Globalizing Representative Democracy: The Emergence of Multilayered International Parliamentarism”, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 197-242.
Kembayev, Zhenis (2016), “Regional Integration in Eurasia: The Legal and Political Framework”, Review of Central and East European Law, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 157-194.
Kemme, David M., Akhmetzaki, Yerkezhan and Mukhamediyev, Bulat M. (2021), “The Effects of the Eurasian Economic Union on Regional Foreign Direct Investment and Implications for Growth”, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 643–660. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09638199.2021.1896769.
Koolaee, Elaheh (2004) The New Great Game in Central Asia: Grounds and Perspectives, Tehran: The Institute of Political and International Studies. [in Persian].
Lemon, Edward and Antonov, Oleg (2020), “Authoritarian Legal Harmonization in the Post Soviet Space”, Democratization, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1778671.
Malamud, Andrés and De Sousa, Luis (2007), Regional Parliaments in Europe and Latin America: Between Empowerment and Irrelevance in: Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann and Anna van der Vleuten (eds.), Closing or Closing or Widening the Gap? Legitimacy and Democracy in Regional International Organizations. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Malamud, Andrés and Stavridis, Stelios (2006), Parliaments and Parliamentarians as International Actors, in: Reinalda, Bob The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Farnham: Ashgate.
Murzakulova, Asel (2014), “Acquring Legitimacy: The Impact of CIS Interparliamentary Institutions on Post-Soviet Parliamentarism”, Central Asia and the Caucasus, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 145-152.
Murzakulova, Asel Japarkulovna (2010), Development of Institutions of Inter-Parliamentary Cooperation of the CIS in the Context of Post-Soviet Transformation,    Bishkek: Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University.
Prokhorenko, I.L. (2020), Interparliamentary institutions in World Politics, Moskow: Imemo Ran.
Rakhimov, Mirzokhid (2010), “Internal and external dynamics of regional cooperation in Central Asia”, Journal of Eurasian Studies, Vol.1, No. 2, pp. 95-101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2010.04.002
Sayfullaev, Durbek (2016), “Parliamentary Diplomacy in Making of Foreign Policy”, International Journal of Development Research, Vol. 6, No. 7, July, PP. 8590-8592, doi:10.15550/ASJ.2016.01.052
Scepanovic, Janko (2020), Institutions, “Cooperation, and Hegemony: a Comparative Analysis of Russia’s Cooperative Hegemonic Strategy in Central Asia’s Key Institutional Frameworks”, Asian Security, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14799855.2020.1784877.
Sanches de Dios, Manuel (2014), Different Comparative Approaches in the Study of Parliaments, Paper prepared for the First Annual Conference of the Erasmus Academic Network on Parliamentary Democracin Europe (PADEMIA). Brussels 12-13 June.
Schimmelfennig, Frank and Lenz, Tobias (2020), The Commonwealth of Independent States and the Eurasian Economic Union in Frank Schimmelfennig and Tobias Lenz, The Rise of International Parliaments, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864974.001.0001.
Sergeev, Alexey (2017), “IPA CIS as a Tool of Strengthening Integration Cooperation”, Dialogue: Politics, Law, Economics, Vol. 1, No 4, PP. 12-25.
Seryogin, V. O (2017), "Interparliamentary Cooperation: Concepts, Signs, Principles", Bulletin of VN Karazin Kharkiv National University Series Law, Vol. 0, No. 23, pp. 46-50.
Smith, Hanna (2016), “Statecraft and Post-Imperial Attractiveness: Eurasian Integration and Russia as a Great Power”, Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2016.1145063.
Stavridis, Stelios and Jancic, Davor (2017), Introduction: The Rise of Parliamentary Diplomacy in International Politics in: Stavridis, Stelios and Jancic, Davor (2017), Parliamentary Diplomacy in European and Global Governance, Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Vasilyevich, Kosov Yury and Vladimirovich, Toropygin Andrey (2012), "The Problem of Political Integration in the Former Soviet Union: on the Creation of Eurasian Parliamentary", Administrative Consulting, Vol. 0, No. 3, pp. 132-139.
Yarashevich, Viachaslau (2020), “The Eurasian Economic Union as a Regional Development Project: Expectations and Realities”, Area Development and Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 82-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949. 2020.1756362.
Wachira, Serah C.W. (2017), Parliamentary Diplomacy and Regional Integration: A Case Study of the East African Legislative Assembly, University of Nairobi Institute of Diplomacy and International studies.
Zverev, Alexei (2019), “CIS Model Public-Private Partnership: Developing Practical Guidelines”, Law in Transitional Journal, Available at: www.ebrd.com › law-in-transition-2019-cis-model.