A systematic review on Post-Cold War Eastern European Patterns Led by Constructivism

Ke Niu; Mingze Sun

doi:10.54097/ehss.v1i.670

Authors

Ke Niu
Mingze Sun

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v1i.670

Keywords:

Constructivism, realism, liberalism, Cold War, Croatia, Baltic States, Central Europe, Balkans

Abstract

This article will explain the reasons why the former European socialist countries chose to embrace the West after the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, and the post-Cold War Eastern European Patterns Led by constructivism. This will find a more plausible theory in the theory of international relations to explain what happened in a specific area in this specific historical period. Literature review is applied in this article to explore definitions of theories and specific policies and data across countries. This article uses some authoritative books on international relations, as well as materials from the World Trade Organization. Some of these materials are the most targeted data provided by the International Trade Organizations to indicate the policy tendency of former Yugoslav countries. In the article, the cases from different regions point out that constructivism is the most reasonable explanation for the former European socialist countries to embrace the West after the dramatic change in Eastern Europe. The article will provide some more specific policy trends in the history of the region for the situation in Eastern Europe that has gradually heated up in recent times. Under the influence of constructivism, the vast majority of former socialist countries in Eastern Europe invariably adopt pro-Western behaviors. There are many reasons for constructivism to become the mainstream theory of diplomacy in Eastern Europe, including the legacy of history and the influence of the "Iron Curtain".

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Dana Gold, Stephen McGlinchey. International Relations Theory[J].2017,09 (1).

Oleg Ken, Alexander Rupasov. Moscow and the Baltic States: Experience of Relationships, 1917–1939[J]. 2018,19 (12).

Sandrina Antunes, Isabel Camisão.Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory[J]. 2018,27 (2).

Cao Pengpeng. Alliance Transformation and Small Country Follow-up Strategy Evaluation——Taking the Three Baltic Countries' Follow-up Strategy to NATO as an Example[J]. International Observation,2019(02):139-156.

Spyridon Plakoudas. The Limits of the EU Enlargement in the Western Balkans[J]. 2020,14 (11).

World Trade Organization Trade Policy Review Body. TRADE POLICY REVIEW Report by the Secretariat CROATIA[?].2010,17 (2).

Joseph M. Grieco. Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism[J].1988: 485-507.

Chen Jianfeng.Robert Keohane and Neoliberalism[J]. International Political Studies,1999(04):117-123.

Sui Xinmin. The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of International Institutions: A Comparison of Three Paradigms of Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism and Constructivism [J]. Academic Exploration, 2004(06):69-74.

Su Changhe. Interpretation of "After Hegemony": Keohane and Neoliberal Institutionalism in International Relations Theory [J]. American Studies, 2001(01):138-146.

Cao Pengpeng.Alliance Transformation and Small Country Follow-up Strategy Evaluation——Taking the Three Baltic Countries' Follow-up Strategy to NATO as an Example[J]. International Observation,2019(02):139-156.

Gao Ge. Central and Eastern European countries and the new changes of NATO after the Cold War [J]. Russian Journal, 2021, 11(01): 5-24.

Kong Gang. NATO, "Cold War Gene" Difficult to Change? [J]. World Knowledge, 2014(20): 40-42.

Liang Qiang. "Identity" and "Security Dilemma": The relationship between the three Baltic countries and Russia after joining NATO and the European Union [J]. Research on Russia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe, 2012(03):76-82.

United Nations. Fifty-sixth session Agenda item 125 Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations.2002,09(1).

Crawford B. Explaining Defection from International Cooperation: Germany's Unilateral Recognition of Croatia. World Politics. Cambridge University Press; 1996;48(4):482–521.

Maysam Behravesh. Constructivism: An Introduction [J]. 2011, (2).

Alexander. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics; International Organization 46, no. 2. [M].1992.409-410.

Li Shijian. A Preliminary Study on the Reasons for the Teutonic Knights' Conquest of the Baltic Sea Region [J]. Young Writers, 2011(20): 115-116.

Zhang Bingfu. The Republic of Estonia—one of the brief introductions of the former Soviet republics [J]. The former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe today, 1992(02): 35-40.

Yu Dachun. The beginning and end of the establishment of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania [J]. European Language and Culture Studies, 2019(01): 79-90+215-216.

He Mengxian. Viewing the Soviet National Separatism from the Independence of the Three Baltic Countries [J]. Siberia Research, 2016, 43(05): 83-85.

Tian Shaoying. Research on the relationship between East-West disarmament process and German unification in the late Cold War [J]. European Studies, 2019, 37(03): 88-106+7.

Zhou Yan, Zhang Ligang. A Brief Discussion on the Gains and Losses of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's Policy on Handling Ethnic Issues [J]. Journal of Shaanxi Radio and Television University, 2020, 22(02): 25-28.

Guan Xin, Lian Chenchao. Interests, Norms and Identity: Analysis of the Trends and Reasons of the European Union's Policy on the Expansion of the Western Balkans [J]. European Studies, 2020, 38(04): 95-117+7.

Wu Zhicheng, Gong Miaozi. An Analysis of European Identity in the Process of European Integration [J]. Nankai Journal (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2007(01): 22-30.

Li Ti. Historical Analysis of Russia's Policy on the Balkans [J]. Academic Research, 2018(03):140-145.