El conflicto internacional en la zona gris: una propuesta teórica desde la perspectiva del realismo ofensivo
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21308/recp.48.05Palabras clave:
relaciones internacionales, estudios estratégicos, conflicto político, zona gris, realismo.Resumen
Este artículo ofrece una teorización del conflicto internacional en la zona gris, un término reciente en la literatura de estudios estratégicos. Para ello se delimita el concepto, identificando sus rasgos definitorios a partir de una revisión de la literatura existente. En segundo lugar, se enmarca el conflicto en la zona gris en la teoría del realismo ofensivo de John Mearsheimer, que estudia la política conflictiva entre grandes potencias y las estrategias utilizadas para incrementar el poder relativo. En tercer lugar, se identifican las líneas de acción estratégica desarrolladas en la zona gris, analizando sus pros y contras. Este tercer objetivo complementa y amplía la propuesta teórica de Mearsheimer, que explica el origen de la rivalidad entre grandes potencias, pero presta menos atención a cómo se desarrolla. De esta forma, el concepto de zona gris halla acomodo en la teoría realista de la política internacional y al mismo tiempo la enriquece.Descargas
Citas
Aaronson, Michael, Sverre Diessen, Yves De Kermabon, Mary Beth Long y Michael Miklaucic. 2011. «NATO Countering the Hybrid Threat», PRISM, 2 (4): 111-124.
Adamsky, Dmitry. 2015. Cross-domain coercion: the current Russian art of strategy. Institut Français des Relations Internationales. Proliferation Papers, 54. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2aUq2UN [Consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Allison, Graham. 2017. Destined for war. Can America and China escape Thucydides»s trap? Nueva York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Altman, Daniel W. 2016. «The long history of «green men» tactics and how they were defeated», War on the Rocks, March 17. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2qtcjsr [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Altman Daniel W. 2017. «By fait accompli, not coercion: how states wrest territory from their adversaries», International Studies Quarterly, 61: 881-891. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx049.
Altman Daniel W. 2018. «Advancing without attacking: the strategic game around the use of force», Security Studies, 27 (1): 58-88. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2017.1360074.
Baqués, Josep. 2015. «El papel de Rusia en el conflicto de Ucrania: ¿la guerra híbrida de las grandes potencias», Revista de Estudios en Seguridad Internacional, 1 (1): 41-60. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.18847/1.1.3.
Baqués, Josep. 2017. Hacia una definición del concepto «Gray Zone» (GZ), Documento de Investigación 2/2017. Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos.
Berti, Benedetta y Yoel Guzansky. 2014. «Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Policy on Iran and the Proxy War in Syria: Toward a New Chapter?», Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 8 (3): 25-34. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/23739770.2014.11446600.
Biscop, Sven. 2015. Hybrid Hysteria. Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations. Security Policy Brief, 64. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2D2DFx4 [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Brands, Hal. 2016. «Paradoxes of the Gray Zone», Foreign Policy Research Institute, 5-2-2016. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2AO7m3h [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Brzezinski, Zbigniew y John J. Mearsheimer. 2005. «Clash of the Titans», Foreign Policy, 146: 46-51.
Charap, Samuel. 2015. «The Ghost of Hybrid War», Survival, 57 (6): 51-58. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2015.1116147.
Coca, Nithin. 2018. «Chinese Tourists Are Beijing’s Newest Economic Weapon», Foreign Policy, 26 September. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2Ost4NZ [consulta: 20 de octubre de 2018].
Colom, Guillem. 2018. «Análisis de la actualidad internacional: contextualizando la guerra híbrida», Ciber Elcano, 32: 4-9.
Cooper, Zack y Andrew Shearer. 2017. «Thinking clearly about China»s layered Indo-Pacific strategy», Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73 (5): 305-311. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2017.1364005.
Cull, Nicholas J. 2008. The Cold War and the United States information agency: American propaganda and public diplomacy, 1945-1989. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817151.
Cullen, Patrick J. y Erik Reichborn-Kjennerud. 2017. Multinational capability development campaign project. Countering hybrid warfare project, understanding hybrid warfare. UK Ministry of Defence. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2LcDWlC [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Dalton, Melissa G. 2017. «How Iran’s hybrid-war tactics help and hurt it», Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73 (5): 312-315.
Echevarria, Antulio J. 2016. Operating in the gray zone: an alternative paradigm for U.S. military strategy. Carlisle: U. S. Army War College Press.
European Strategy and Policy Analysis System. 2015. Global trends to 2030: Can the EU meet the challenges ahead? Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fair, C. Christine. 2014. Fighting to the end: The Pakistan army»s way of war. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892709.001.0001.
Freier, Nathan. 2016. Outplayed: regaining strategic initiative in the gray zone. Carlisle: U. S. Army War College Press.
Galeotti, Mark. 2016. «Hybrid, ambiguous, and non-linear? How new is Russia’s ‘new way of war’?», Small Wars and Insurgencies, 27 (2): 282-301. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2015.1129170.
George, Alexander. 1994. «Coercive Diplomacy: Definition and Characteristics», en Alexander George y William E. Simons (eds.). The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Glaser, Charles L. 1994. «Realists as optimists: cooperation as self-help», International Security, 19 (3): 50-90. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539079.
Gompert, David C., Astrid Stuth Cevallos y Cristina L. Garafola. 2016. War with China. Thinking through the unthinkable. Santa Monica CA: RAND Corporation. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1140.
Gray, Colin S. 2013. Perspectives on strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674275.001.0001.
Green, Michael, Kathleen Hicks, Zack Cooper, John Schaus y Jake Douglas. 2017. Countering coercion in maritime asia. The theory and practice of gray zone deterrence. Washington D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Haass, Richard N. 2017. «13 International Relations Buzzwords That Need to Get Taken to the Woodshed», Foreign Policy, February 3. Disponible en web: https://bit.ly/2koOnCx [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Holmes, James R. y Toshi Yoshihara. 2017. «Deterring China in the ‘gray zone’: lessons of the South China Sea for U.S. alliances», Orbis, 61 (3): 322-339. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2017.05.002.
Howard, Philip N. y Bence Kollanyi. 2016. «Bots, #strongerin, and #Brexit: computational propaganda during the UK-EU referendum», Comprop Research Note 2016-1. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2JGrWoV [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Jacobs Andreas y Guillaume Lasconjarias. 2015. «Hybrid warfare in the strategic spectrum: an historical assessment», en Guillaume Lasconjarias y Jeffrey A. Larsen (eds.), NATO»s response to hybrid threats. Roma: NATO Defense College.
Jakobsen, Peter V. 2007. «Coercive Diplomacy», en Alan Collins (ed.), Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jervis, Robert. 1981. The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kapusta, Philip. 2015. «The gray zone», Special Warfare, 28 (2): 19-25.
Keohane, Robert O. y Joseph S. Nye. 1989. Power and interdependence. Nueva York: Harper-Collins.
Kofman, Michael. 2017. «The Moscow school of hard knocks: key pillars of Russian strategy», War on the Rocks, 17-1-2017. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2jwjvCj [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Kragh, Martin y Sebastian Åsberg. 2017. «Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the Swedish case», Journal of Strategic Studies, 40 (6): 773-816. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2016.1273830.
Kramer, Franklin D. y Lauren M. Speranza. 2017. Meeting the Russian hybrid challenge a comprehensive strategic framework. Washington, D. C.: Atlantic Council.
Lai, Christina. 2018. «Acting one way and talking another: china»s coercive economic diplomacy in East Asia and beyond», The Pacific Review, 31 (2): 169-187. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1357652.
Lowenthal, Mark M. 2012. Intelligence: from secrets to policy. Washington, D. C.: CQ Press.
Luttwak, Edward N. 2005. Para bellum: la estrategia de la paz y de la guerra. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
MacFarquhar, Neil. 2018. «Inside the Russian troll factory: zombies and a breakneck pace», The New York Times, 18-2 2018. Disponible en: https://nyti.ms/2HCy5ot [consulta: 1 de octubre de 2018].
Mack, Andrew. 1975. «Why big nations lose small wars: the politics of asymmetric conflict», World Politics, 27 (2): 175-200. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/2009880.
Makovsky, David. 2012. «The silent strike. How Israel bombed a Syrian nuclear installation and kept it secret», The Washington Institute, 17 de septiembre. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2Pfrm7J [consulta: 1 de octubre de 2018].
Mansoor, Peter R. 2012. «Introduction: hybrid warfare in history», en Williamson Murray y Peter R. Mansoor (eds.), Hybrid warfare: fighting complex opponents from the ancient world to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139199254.001.
Maoz, Zeev y Nasrin Abdolali. 1989. «Regime types and international conflict, 1816-1976», Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33 (1): 3-35. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002789033001001.
Mazarr, Michael J. 2015. Mastering the gray zone: understanding a changing era of conflict. Carlisle: U. S. Army War College Press.
Mead, Walter Russell. 2014. «The return of geopolitics: the revenge of the revisionist powers», Foreign Affairs, 93 (3): 69-79.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2003. The tragedy of great power politics. Nueva York: Norton.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2010. «The gathering storm: China»s challenge to US power in Asia», The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3: 381-396. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poq016.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2011. «Realists as idealists», Security Studies, 20 (3): 424-430. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2011.599190.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2014. «Why the Ukraine crisis is the West»s fault», Foreign Affairs, 93 (5): 1-12.
Mearsheimer, John J. y Stephen M. Walt. 2016. «The case for offshore balancing. A superior U.S. grand strategy», Foreign Affairs, 95 (4): 70-83.
National Intelligence Council. 2017. Global Trends: Paradox of Progress. Washington D. C.: Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Nelson Rebecca M. 2017. «U. S. Sanctions and Russia’s Economy», Congressional Research Service, 17-2-2017. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2D5sP9C [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 2017. «Background to assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent US elections: the analytic process and cyber incident attribution». Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2iRbS9b [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Oldham, Chuck. 2015. «SOCOM: navigating the gray zone», Defense Media Network, 23-6-2015. Disponible en web: https://bit.ly/2yRNgUe [consulta: 1 de octubre de 2018]
Peco, Miguel. 2017. «La persistencia de lo híbrido como expresión de vulnerabilidad: un análisis retrospectivo e implicaciones para la seguridad internacional», UNISCI Discussion Papers, 44: 39-54.
Perlmutter, Amos, Uri Bar-Joseph y Michael Handel. 2003. Two minutes over Baghdad. Londres: Frank Cass.
Posen, Barry R. 1984. The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Rid, Thomas y Ben Buchanan. 2015. «Attributing cyber attacks», Journal of Strategic Studies, 38 (1-2): 4-37. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.977382.
Robinson, Linda, Todd C. Helmus, Raphael S. Cohen, Alireza Nader, Andrew Radin, Madeline Magnuson y Katya Migacheva. 2018. Modern political warfare. Current practices and possible responses. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1772.
Rosecrance, Richard N. 1986. The rise of the trading state: commerce and conquest in the modern world. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Russell, Martin. 2018. «Sanctions over Ukraine. Impact on Russia», European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing, enero. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2D0026h [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Russett, Bruce. M. y John Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. Nueva York: Norton.
Schadlow, Nadia. 2014. «Peace and War: The Space Between», War on the Rocks, 18-8-2014. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2mzXy2o [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Schelling. Thomas C. 1966. Arms and influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Singer, P. W. y Emerson T. Brooking. 2008. LikeWar. The weaponization of social media. Nueva York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Snyder, Alvin A. 1997. Warriors of disinformation: American propaganda, soviet lies, and the winning of the cold war: an insider»s account. Nueva York: Arcade Publishing.
Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of empire. Domestic politics and international ambition. Nueva York: Cornell University.
Splidsboel-Hansen, Flemming. 2017. Russian hybrid warfare. A study of disinformation, Danish Institute for International Studies Report, 6. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2m3VQvl [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018]
Stewart, Scott. 2018. «Russia sends a chilling message with its latest chemical attack», Stratfor, 13-3-2018. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2P9gb0g [consulta: 1 de octubre de 2018].
Tang, Shiping. 2010. A theory of security strategy for our time: Defensive Realism. Nueva York: Palgrave Macmillan. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1057/ 9780230106048.
Tenenbaum, Élie. 2015. «Hybrid warfare in the strategic spectrum: an historical assessment», en Guillaume Lasconjarias y Jeffrey A. Larsen (eds.), NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats. Roma: NATO Defense College.
Toft, Peter. 2005. «John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power», Journal of International Relations and Development, 8: 381-408. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065.
Uppsala Conflict Data Program. 2018. Definitions, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2QmXy5Q [consulta: 4 de mayo de 2018].
Van Evera, Stephen.1998. «Offense, defense, and the causes of war», International Security, 22 (4): 5-43. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.22.4.5.
Van Evera, Stephen. 1999. Causes of war: the structure of power and the roots of war. Ithaca, Nueva York.: Cornell University Press.
Votel, Joseph L., Charles T. Cleveland, Charles T Connett y Will Irwin. 2016. «Unconventional warfare in the gray zone», Joint Forces Quarterly, 80: 101-109.
Walt, Stephen M. 1985. «Alliance formation and the balance of world power», International Security, 9 (4): 3-43.
Walt, Stephen M. 2011. «Nationalism rules», Foreign Policy, 15-7-2011. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/2ztz4Aq [consulta: 1 de octubre de 2018]. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2307/2538540.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2001. Man, the state and war. a theoretical analysis. Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2010. Theory of international politics. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Wirtz, James J. 2017. «Life in the “gray zone”: observations for contemporary strategists», Defense and Security Analysis, 33 (2), 106-114. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2017.1310702.
Zielonka, Jan. 2012. «Empires and the modern international system», Geopolitics, 17 (3): 502-525. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2011.595440.
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2018 Javier Jordán
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
