URL: https://artsakhlib.am/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download…

Նկարագրություն: The goal of the article is to theorize the factors influencing the Russian direction of
Armenia’s foreign policy through the school of neorealism (structural realism) of International
Relations and reveal the effectiveness of such approach in the study of the discussed subject.
This theorizing attempt is applied on a period beginning with the collapse of the Soviet
Union up to 2013, which is accompanied by the reconstruction of the factors influencing the
Russian direction of Armenia’s foreign policy. This attempt identifies the following variables that
reflect the transformations of the foreign policy: (A) the threats concerning Armenia’s domesticstructural vulnerabilities, (B) regional-systemic, (C) the global-systemic balance of power. The
measurement of the selected variables in the period of 1991-2013 allows to conclude that such an
attempt of theorization through the application of the theoretical-methodological approaches of
neorealism allow to reveal the more relevant factors influencing the Russian direction of
Armenia’s foreign policy. The selected period also allows tracking the evolution of the selected
factors during the tenure of different leaders of Armenia.

Նկարագրություն: The objective of the article is to reveal the transformations of the regional factors of the neorealist nature that
in the mid-term have conditioned Armenia's foreign policy, particularly its relations with Russia in the aftermath if the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.
The article examines not only the questions regarding the transformation of those regional factors but also the their effect - weather constraining or enabling – on Armenia's foreign and alliance policies. It concludes that most of the revealed neorealist factors have had a constraining effect not only on the Armenian-Russian relations but on Armenia's foreign policy in general. The window of opportunity that existed in the aftermath of the war that could enable overcoming or ameliorating some of the threats that lay the ground for Armenia's bandwagoning policy with Russia, was soon shut creating even more, instead of less threats, thus boosting the imperative of deeper bandwagon.

URL: https://journals.ysu.am/index.php/bulletin-ysu-int-rel-pol/article/view/vol12_n…

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU:D/2021.12.2.070

Նկարագրություն: The article explores the security perceptions of Armenia’s ruling political elite from the 2008 Russian-Georgian war to the post-April war period up to 2018 by applying constructivist methodology and the concept of security identity. The research relies on the speeches, interviews of the ruling elite, Government programs and relevant documents, and preelection programs of the ruling Republic Party of Armenia that reveal their perceptions of the structural factors (domestic-structural, regional-security, global-systemic) affecting the Russian direction of Armenia’s foreign policy. The article reveals that initially, the elite regarded the normalization of the relations with the neighbours as a way of overcoming domestic-structural vulnerabilities. The failure of the efforts in that direction resulted in the growth of the importance of the EU as means of modernization and regional stability. As this direction too did not meet the expectations, the belief of Russia’s indispensable role was reinstated in the eyes of the ruling elite. While it was expected that Armenia’s membership in Eurasian Economic Union would boost Armenia’s security under Russia’s regional security umbrella, the intensification of Russia’s arms sales to Azerbaijan had been creating discontent among the ruling elite which only became more apparent after the 2016 “April war”.

URL: https://generalnews.am/hy/archive/07e1cd7dca89a1678042477183b7ac3f/

Նկարագրություն: The article aims to reveal the transformations of domestic-structural and global-systemic factors deriving
from the school of neorealism that condition Armenia’s foreign policy and particularly the Armenian-Russian relations in the mid-term perspective in the aftermath of the 2008 Russian-Georgian war. At the level of the domesticstructural factors the issues of communications and infrastructure, external economic relations and of other resource mobilization matters are discussed that have become actual in the aftermath of the war (or simply after the war). The level of global-systemic factors studies the influence of the WesternRussian attempts to integrate or establish zones of influence in a manner of reciprocally excluding zero-sum game.

Նկարագրություն: The goal of the article is to promote the synthesis of Neorealist and Constructivist schools of International
Relations in the study of states' foreign policies and exemplify the necessity of such approach by the weaknesses of separately taken each theory in the explanation of Armenia's foreign policy. To that end, the article discusses issues of methodological compatibility of the two theories and the expediency of their synthesis for the study of Armenia's foreign policy. In that context, the article addresses some possible critique regarding the contradictory tensions between the theories and reveals the similarities of the two. The article argues that it is possible to increase the validity of research by the complementary approach to Neorealism and Constructivism, while accepting, that no single theory or even discipline alone is well positioned to describe, moreover explain the entirety of political realities in question, which further justifies the need of juxtaposition of more than one theoretical lens. The vast literature review reveals the academic consensus regarding the feasibility of combining the two theories. The article also treats some issues of the study of Armenian foreign policy that illustrate how any of those theories alone is incomplete in their explanations of the political reality. The article departs from the premise that research should not be kept hostage of ontological or empirical obligations towards any one theory. Moreover, the exclusive dedication of a researcher to any one single theory risks to fall into ethical traps and to overstretch arguments with weak explanatory basis because of self-imposed elimination of other relevant factors that are relevant for other theories.