IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v18y2015i1p26-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mistrust and hegemony: Regional institutional design, the FSU-CIS, and Russia

Author

Listed:
  • John P. Willerton

    (School of Government & Public Policy, University of Arizona, USA)

  • Gary Goertz

    (Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, USA)

  • Michael O. Slobodchikoff

    (Department of Political Science, Troy University, USA)

Abstract

Power inequalities and mistrust have characterized many relationships between states over the centuries. One approach that states can take to deal with these two, often interrelated, problems is to create intergovernmental institutions and arrangements designed to accommodate the interests of states with varied power capabilities. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) embodies an interesting institutional design in an effort by former Soviet Union (FSU) countries to address these dilemmas. The CIS was not only the first multilateral FSU organization created following the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it also provided a necessary and important framework for the further construction of bilateral and multilateral relations among the former Soviet republics as they reengaged one another. CIS arrangements have been augmented by extensive bilateral negotiations and treaties and, brought together, these interconnected multilateral and bilateral instruments yield a system of cautious regional security governance and framework for international relations within the FSU. This paper analyzes three key features of this foundational CIS institutional design: (1) legalism, (2) an à la carte choice of treaty instruments, and (3) nested bilateralism, wherein many details of the regional, multilateral agreements are implemented via bilateral treaties (hence constituting a combination design feature). Empirically, the paper illuminates this institutional design using a unique dataset of all multilateral security treaties of the CIS (approximately 185) and all bilateral security treaties (more than 500) between the regional hegemon, Russia, and the smaller CIS members. We further investigate the causal mechanisms of the CIS institutional design as it copes with the conditions of hegemony and mistrust in two bilateral case studies, Russia–Armenia, and Russia–Ukraine (Black Sea Fleet status). We find the CIS institutional design, built upon by subsequent FSU regional organizations (including the Eurasian Economic Union and Shanghai Cooperation Organization), has permitted both more and less powerful states to advance their interrelated security interests in the face of considerable power asymmetry and mistrust. More than twenty years after the CIS’s formation, a patchwork of Eurasian regional organizations and numerous related bilateral treaties widen regional security and other arrangements. Meanwhile, the dramatic events surrounding the February 2014 Ukrainian coup and the joining of Crimea to the Russian Federation only reinforce the importance of understanding state treaty activity in channeling state action. Questions surround Russia respecting the 1992 treaty and protocol with Ukraine and the US on the removal of nuclear weapons from the territory of Ukraine and the joint recognition of Ukraine’s sovereign borders. But Russia’s spring 2014 actions involving Crimea and its Crimean bases accorded with the various treaties concluded with Ukraine in 1997; treaties addressing the Black Sea Fleet and the Crimean Peninsula that are a subject of our analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • John P. Willerton & Gary Goertz & Michael O. Slobodchikoff, 2015. "Mistrust and hegemony: Regional institutional design, the FSU-CIS, and Russia," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 26-52, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:18:y:2015:i:1:p:26-52
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865914562256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865914562256
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865914562256?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian Bremmer, 1994. "The politics of ethnicity: Russians in the New Ukraine," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 261-283.
    2. Stephen Burant, 1995. "Foreign policy and national identity: A comparison of Ukraine and Belarus," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(7), pages 1125-1144.
    3. Kydd, Andrew, 2000. "Trust, Reassurance, and Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(2), pages 325-357, April.
    4. Kydd, Andrew, 2001. "Trust Building, Trust Breaking: The Dilemma of NATO Enlargement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 801-828, October.
    5. Goldstein, Judith & Kahler, Miles & Keohane, Robert O. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2000. "Introduction: Legalization and World Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 385-399, July.
    6. Margarita Balmaceda, 1998. "Gas, Oil and the linkages between domestic and foreign policies: The case of Ukraine," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 257-286.
    7. Larson, Deborah Welch, 1987. "Crisis prevention and the Austrian State Treaty," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 27-60, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tamilina, Larysa, 2021. "The Dynamics of National Identity and Pride Formation in Ukraine," MPRA Paper 111033, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Tamilina, Larysa, 2021. "A comparative analysis of confidence to the CIS between Ukraine and Russia," MPRA Paper 111155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Tamilina, Larysa, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Worries About a War in the Context of Ukraine-Russia Relations," MPRA Paper 111587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Tamilina, Larysa, 2022. "Political factors as possible determinants behind the sense of identificationwith the nation, state, or society: hte case of Ukraine and Russia," MPRA Paper 115406, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leonardo Baccini & Johannes Urpelainen, 2014. "Before ratification: understanding the timing of international treaty effects on domestic policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 50278, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Andrew Kydd, 2000. "Overcoming Mistrust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(4), pages 397-424, November.
    3. Kong, NGUYEN To Hong, 2021. "State-to-state Trust in Post-leadership Change: Case Study of China-Japan Relations, 2009-2019," OSF Preprints hdbcy, Center for Open Science.
    4. Manfred Elsig & Karolina Milewicz & Nikolas Stürchler, 2011. "Who is in love with multilateralism? Treaty commitment in the post-Cold War era," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(4), pages 529-550, December.
    5. Cali Mortenson Ellis & Michael C. Horowitz & Allan C. Stam, 2015. "Introducing the LEAD Data Set," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 718-741, August.
    6. Liesbet Hooghe & Tobias Lenz & Gary Marks, 2019. "Contested world order: The delegitimation of international governance," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 731-743, December.
    7. Julia Rotter & Peppi-Emilia Airike & Cecilia Mark-Herbert, 2014. "Exploring Political Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 581-599, December.
    8. Arne Schollaert & Dirk Van de gaer, 2008. "Boycotts, Power Politics, or Trust Building: How to Prevent Conflict?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 164(2), pages 356-379, June.
    9. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.
    10. Eberwein, Wolf-Dieter, 2001. "Realism or idealism, or both? Security policy and humanitarianism," Discussion Papers, Research Group International Politics P 01-307, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Oliver Westerwinter, 2015. "Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses A. Wessel and Jan Wouters (Eds.). 2012. Informal international lawmaking. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 97-101, March.
    12. Gerstetter, Christiane & Maier, Matthias Leonhard, 2005. "Risk regulation, trade and international law: debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO," TranState Working Papers 18, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    13. Oliver Westerwinter & Kenneth W. Abbott & Thomas Biersteker, 2021. "Informal governance in world politics," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27, January.
    14. Sauvageot, Eric Pardo, 2020. "Between Russia as producer and Ukraine as a transit country: EU dilemma of interdependence and energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    15. Lee, Jiwon & Wittgenstein, Teresa, 2017. "Weak vs. Strong Ties: Explaining Early Settlement in WTO Disputes," ILE Working Paper Series 7, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    16. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Domestic reform as a rationale for gradualism in international cooperation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 400-427, July.
    17. Sonal Pandya & David Leblang, 2017. "Risky business: Institutions vs. social networks in FDI," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 91-117, July.
    18. Costa-Font, Joan & Mas, Núria, 2016. "‘Globesity’? The effects of globalization on obesity and caloric intake," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 121-132.
    19. Guido Merzoni & Federico Trombetta, 2012. "Foundations of trust, interpersonal relationships and communities," Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, Vita e Pensiero, Pubblicazioni dell'Universita' Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, vol. 120(3), pages 295-312.
    20. Brent B Allred & Michael G Findley & Daniel Nielson & J C Sharman, 2017. "Anonymous shell companies: A global audit study and field experiment in 176 countries," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 596-619, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:18:y:2015:i:1:p:26-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.