پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,317 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,384 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 24,319,757 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 16,254,618 |
حکمرانی و مدیریت بحران غییر اقلیم؛ تحلیل تطبیقی رویکردهای روسیه و چین | ||
| مدیریت سیاسی | ||
| دوره 1، شماره 1، شهریور 1405، صفحه 25-52 اصل مقاله (773.61 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| ابوذر عمرانی* | ||
| دکترای روابط بینالملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، گروه روابط بینالملل | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تغییر اقلیم بهعنوان یکی از مهمترین بحرانهای جهانی در قرن بیست و یکم ابعاد گوناگون زیستمحیطی، اقتصادی، اجتماعی و امنیتی را در بر گرفته و ضرورت بازاندیشی در الگوهای حکمرانی و مدیریت بحران را برای دولتها به همراه داشته است. در این چارچوب نحوه مدیریت و سیاستگذاری دولتها در مواجهه با پیامدهای این پدیده نقش تعیینکنندهای در کنترل و کاهش آثار آن دارد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف تحلیل و مقایسه الگوهای مدیریت بحران تغییر اقلیم در دو قدرت مهم جهانی یعنی روسیه و چین انجام شده است. پرسش اصلی تحقیق آن است که چرا این دو کشور با وجود مواجهه با چالش مشترک تغییر اقلیم رویکردهای متفاوتی اتخاذ کردهاند. فرضیه بر این مبنا استوار است که تفاوت در ادراک تهدید، میزان آسیبپذیری زیستمحیطی، ساختار اقتصادی و محاسبات راهبردی بر نحوه مدیریت و سیاستگذاری اقلیمی این دو کشور اثرگذار بوده است. روش پژوهش توصیفی-تحلیلی و مبتنی بر منابع کتابخانهای و اسنادی است. یافتهها نشان میدهد که چین به دلیل آسیبپذیری بالاتر در برابر پیامدهای اقلیمی و نیز ضرورت رشد اقتصادی و ثبات اجتماعی الگوی مدیریت فعال بحران را از طریق اصلاحات نهادی، تدوین سیاستهای کاهش انتشار، توسعه انرژیهای تجدیدپذیر و مشارکت گستردهتر در رژیمهای بینالمللی اقلیمی دنبال کرده است. در مقابل روسیه به دلیل وابستگی اقتصاد خود به سوختهای فسیلی و همچنین برداشت متفاوت از پیامدهای تغییر اقلیم، رویکردی محتاطانهتر و محدودتر در مدیریت این بحران اتخاذ کرده است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| مدیریت بحران؛ حکمرنی اقلیمی؛ سیاستگذاری زیست محیطی؛ چین؛ روسیه؛ تغییر اقلیم | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Governance and management of non-climate crises: a comparative analysis of Russian and Chinese approaches | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Abouzar Omrani | ||
| PhD in International Relations, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Department of International Relations | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| 1) Introduction Climate change has in recent decades evolved from a purely environmental issue into one of the most important security, economic, and social challenges at the global level. Rising global temperatures, intensifying droughts, floods, forest fires, declining water resources, threats to food security, and population displacement are consequences that directly affect human security and the stability of societies. From this perspective, how states respond to climate change and how they manage its consequences have become increasingly important. China and Russia, as two major Eurasian powers and among the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, represent important cases for studying differences in climate approaches. The main problem of the research is why, despite the high position of China and Russia in greenhouse gas emissions and their exposure to the consequences of climate change, their policies and patterns of crisis management are different. In recent years, China has moved toward reforming its development model, expanding renewable energy, strengthening green technologies, and participating more actively in international climate regimes; whereas Russia remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels and, while accepting limited climate commitments, regards some consequences of global warming as economic and geopolitical opportunities. Therefore, the main research question is: What factors have caused the difference between China’s and Russia’s approaches to managing the climate change crisis? The research hypothesis is that differences in threat perception, economic structure, the degree of dependence on fossil fuels, and the linkage of climate change to human security and domestic stability are the most important factors shaping the differences between China’s and Russia’s climate policies. 2) Objective The main objective of this research is to examine and compare China’s and Russia’s approaches to climate change and to analyze the methods of climate crisis management in these two countries. The study seeks to compare their roles in greenhouse gas emissions, the risks and opportunities arising from climate change, domestic policies, the development of clean energy, technological measures, vegetation protection, and international commitments. Another objective is to explain the differences between the two countries’ policies based on the framework of human security, threat perception, and national interests. 3) Method This research is descriptive-analytical and comparative in terms of method, and the required data have been collected through a library-based method by studying books, academic articles, documents, and reports related to climate change and the policies of China and Russia. In the analytical section, the policies of the two countries are examined and compared based on variables such as the level of greenhouse gas emissions, perception of climate risks, development model, domestic laws and institutions, use of renewable energy, technological innovation, vegetation management, and international commitments.The theoretical foundations of the research are based on the human security and crisis management approach. According to the human security approach, the primary referent of security is the human being and their quality of life, and security threats are not limited to military and territorial issues. From this perspective, climate change is a non-traditional and transnational threat that can endanger food, economic, health, social, and environmental security. Crisis management also emphasizes reducing vulnerability, prevention, adaptation, and institutional coordination. 4) Findings The findings of the research indicate that China and Russia, despite their important positions in greenhouse gas emissions, have adopted different policies based on different perceptions of the climate threat. China regards climate change as a serious threat to human security, social stability, economic growth, and government legitimacy; therefore, its approach has moved toward active crisis management. Reforming the development model and moving toward a low-carbon economy, expanding wind, solar, and hydropower, strengthening scientific research and green technologies, increasing vegetation cover, and establishing legal infrastructure are among China’s major measures. Following the Paris Agreement, the country has also adopted more active participation in the international climate regime and has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2060. In contrast, although Russia faces severe consequences of global warming, forest fires, floods, and the melting of polar ice, its economy’s dependence on oil, gas, and coal means that it does not regard climate change solely as a threat. Easier access to Arctic resources, the development of shipping routes, and the potential expansion of cultivable land have led some consequences of global warming to be viewed as economic and geopolitical opportunities. Consequently, Russia’s climate policy is more focused on adaptation, limited emissions management, and forest protection, while the development of renewable energy has a limited position. Therefore, the main difference between the two countries is evident in the relationship among threat perception, economic structure, and human security. 5) Conclusion A comparison of China’s and Russia’s climate policies shows that climate change is not solely determined by the degree of countries’ environmental vulnerability; rather, threat perception, economic structure, and national interests play decisive roles in shaping climate policies. By recognizing the consequences of climate change for human security, social stability, and economic development, China has moved toward active crisis management, the expansion of clean energy, technological innovation, and broader participation in international cooperation. In contrast, because of its strong dependence on revenues from fossil fuels and its perception of some consequences of warming as opportunities, Russia has adopted a cautious, interest-oriented, and adaptive approach. Accordingly, the research hypothesis is confirmed, because differences in threat perception and the economic structures of the two countries, together with the extent to which climate change is linked to human security, have resulted in significant differences in their crisis-management policies. Consequently, human security can provide an appropriate framework for explaining the differences in the climate behavior of major powers. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Crisis management, climate governance, environmental policy-making, China, Russia, climate change | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1 |
||