|ترجمه عنوان مقاله||استراتژی ها و چالش های توسعه پایدار در اوراسیا|
|عنوان انگلیسی مقاله||Strategies and challenges of sustainable development in Eurasia|
|انتشار||مقاله سال ۲۰۲۲|
|تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||۱۲ صفحه|
|هزینه||دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.|
|پایگاه داده||نشریه تیلور و فرانسیس – Taylor & Francis|
|نوع نگارش مقاله||مقاله پژوهشی (Research article)|
|مقاله بیس||این مقاله بیس میباشد|
|نمایه (index)||JCR – Master Journal List|
|فرمت مقاله انگلیسی|
||۲٫۴۰۲ در سال ۲۰۲۰|
|شاخص H_index||۲۹ در سال ۲۰۲۲|
|شاخص SJR||۰٫۵۰۹ در سال ۲۰۲۰|
|شاخص Quartile (چارک)||Q2 در سال ۲۰۲۰|
|رشته های مرتبط||مهندسی شهرسازی – مهندسی محیط زیست|
|گرایش های مرتبط||طراحی شهری – مهندسی طراحی محیط زیست – آلودگی های محیط زیست|
|نوع ارائه مقاله
|مجله / کنفرانس||اقتصادهای پسا کمونیستی – Post-Communist Economies|
|دانشگاه||Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies (IRES), Uppsala University, Sweden|
|کلمات کلیدی||توسعه پایدار – زنجیره هسته ای – درگیری های زیست محیطی – انتشار گازهای گلخانه ای – اوراسیا – میراث های تاریخی|
|کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی||Sustainable development – nuclear chain – environmental conflicts – emissions – Eurasia – historical legacies|
|شناسه دیجیتال – doi||https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2022.2028478|
|وضعیت ترجمه مقاله||ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.|
|دانلود رایگان مقاله||دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
|سفارش ترجمه این مقاله||سفارش ترجمه این مقاله|
|فهرست مطالب مقاله:|
Strategies: nation-states as global, regional, and national actors
Challenges: emissions and nuclear chain
|بخشی از متن مقاله:|
While supporting the values and goals of sustainable development at the international level, states might employ very different strategies at the national level. The goal of this Forward and of special issue is twofold. First, it aims to advance our understanding of different strategies, paying special attention to China and Russia at global, national, and sub-national levels. Thus, analysis of their strategies across different levels presents a more rounded picture. The second goal is to identify at least a few of the most pressing challenges of sustainable development across Eurasia (e.g. nuclear supply chain, emissions, environmental conflict management) and to attempt to understand their triggers, outcomes, and potential solutions. This Forward aspires to develop a better dialogue across different sets of literature in area studies, environmental politics, and international relations to improve our understanding of obstacles to sustainable development in Eurasia.
Studies on democratisation and regime transition in Eurasia have flourished over the last two decades.1 The literature has looked into a wide range of causal explanations of the consolidation of a variety of political regimes in Eurasia and in the European Union’s (EU) neighbourhood, such as historical legacies of Communism, the impact of the EU, and (associated with it) the diffusion of democratic values and principles even beyond its enlargement, at national and sub-national levels.2 Membership in international organisations (IOs) has usually been associated with promotion of human rights, democratisation, marketisation, and economic development.3 Only recently have scholars made the next step to ask a question regarding the possibility of the opposite impact of regional IOs led by autocracies on the consolidation of non-democratic regimes across Eurasia.4 Yet, this rich and fast-growing body of literature on the variety of political regimes emerged in Eurasia, their causes, and their consequences, has somehow been detached from studies looking into the problems, challenges, and strategies of sustainable development in Eurasia.5 In economics, however, a few studies have emerged connecting political regimes to outcomes of environmental policies, among other issues (e.g. Fredriksson & Neumayer, 2013; Fredriksson & Wollscheid, 2007; Nazarov & Obydenkova, 2021b). Despite this, there seems to be space for further, more interdisciplinary analysis of specific case studies and actors in Eurasia. While two sets of studies have been developing fast, they seemed to exist in two parallel worlds without much engagement with each other. Yet, both bodies of literature exhibit some similarities and unique insights, and can certainly benefit from establishing a deeper dialogue with each other. This special issue aspires to build on both somewhat separate sets of studies (on political regimes and on sustainable development in Eurasia) and to develop further the dialogue between them.
This volume contributes to multiple sets of literature and has raised a number of issues that are likely to stay on the research agenda. The collection of articles advances studies on the diffusion of values and practices, on the role of history, and importance of external influences for sustainable development (e.g. historical legacies of nuclear chain and emissions; external impact on environmental movements; environmental rhetoric). These concluding remarks outline some of these findings presented in this volume and place them within broader cross-disciplinary literature.
First, the special issue contributes to diffusion literature and studies of regionalism. It focuses on the international and national strategies of state actors and on environmental challenges. An important question is whether and how membership of states in different IOs (e.g. global climate clubs or the EU) matters in the fight against climate change (dealing with nuclear chain or emissions). As the study by Tosun and Shyrokykh (2021) argues, membership in climate clubs is associated with learning across states at the global level and allows direct access to the latest information, practices, and innovations. These activities, contacts, and formal and informal meetings within climate clubs (as well as within other IOs) are strongly associated with the diffusion of values and principles. Diffusion takes place at both cross-national and cross sub-national levels (Lankina et al., 2016a). On the other hand, the environmental commitments of China, Russia, and Kazakhstan can be analysed within the literature in terms of formal goals versus real motivations (see also, Libman & Obydenkova, 2018a, 2018b; Poberezhskaya & Bychkova, 2021). While formally proclaiming support for sustainable development, these nondemocracies also seek to augment their international image as global, environmentally friendly actors (Kochtcheeva, 2021; Tosun & Rinscheid, 2021).