Formal Models in International Studies

---

References

Afontsev S.A. Politicheskie rynki i ekonomicheskaya politika [Political Markets and Economic Policies]. Moscow: KomKniga. 2010. 384 p. (In Russ.)

Akimov V.P., Lukov V.B., Parshin P.B., Sergeev V.M. Cuban Missile Crisis: Experience of Modeling. – USA and Canada: Economics – Politics – Culture. 1989. No. 5. P. 36-49. (In Russ.)

Allan P., Dupont C. International Relations Theory and Game Theory: Baroque Modeling Choices and Empirical Robustness. – International Political Science Review. 1999. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 23-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512199201002

Axelrod R. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1997. 248 p.

Axelrod R. The Evolution of Cooperation. Cambridge: Basic Books. 2006. 264 p.

Boulding K. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth. – Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy. Ed. by H. Jarrett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1966. P. 3-14.

Braumoeller B. The Great Powers and the International System: Systemic Theory in Empirical Perspective (Cambridge Studies in International Relations). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013. 297 p.

Camerer C. Progress in Behavioral Game Theory. – Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1997. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 167-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.167

Cederman L.-E. Agent-Based Modeling in Political Science. – The Political Methodologist. 2001. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 16-22.

Degterev D.A. Network Analysis of International Relations. – Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Political Science. International relations. 2015. No. 4. P. 119-138. (In Russ.)

Degterev D.A., Degterev A.Kh. Game Theory and International Relations. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 2011. No. 2. P. 79-89. (In Russ.)

Degterev D.A. Computer Modeling of International Relations. – International Trends. 2011. Vol. 9. No. 3 (27). P. 53-66. (In Russ.)

Epstein J., Steinbrune J., Parker M. Modeling Civil Violence: An Agent-Based Computational Approach. Center on Social and Economic Dynamics, Working Paper No.20, Brookings Institution. 2001. URL: https://www.brookings.edu/research/modeling-civil-violence-an-agent-based-computational-approach/ (accessed 05.06.2017).

Gates S., Humes B. Games, Information and Politics. Applying Game Theoretic Models to Political Science. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 1997. 192 p.

Geller D., Singer D. Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. 260 p.

Giddens A. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and the Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1979. 294 p.

Giddens A. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1986. 402 p.

Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. (Russ. ed.: Giddens A. Ustroenie obshchestva. Ocherk teorii strukturatsii. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt. 2005. 528 p.)

Islamskie radikal’nye dvizheniya na politicheskoi karte sovremennogo mira: Strany Severnoi i Severo- Vostochnoi Afriki [Islamic Radical Movements in the Political Map of the Modern World: North and North- East Africa]. Ed. by A.D. Savateev, E.F. Kisriev. Moscow: Lenand. 2015. 424 p. (In Russ.)

Jervis R. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1976. 544 p.

Kahneman D., Slovik P., Tverski A. Prinyatie reshenii v neopredelennosti: Pravila i predubezhdeniya [Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases]. Khar’kov: Gumanitarnyi tsentr. 2005. 632 p. (In Russ.)

Khrustalev M.A. Analiz mezhdunarodnykh situatsii i politicheskaya ekspertiza: ocherki teorii i metodologii [Analysis of the International Situation and Political Expertise: Essays on the Theory and Methodology]. Moscow: NOFMO. 2008. 232 p. (In Russ.)

Khrustalev M.A. Sistemnoe modelirovanie mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [System Modeling of International Relations]. Moscow: MGIMO MID SSSR. 1987. 115 p. (In Russ.)

Khudaykulova A.V. Contemporary International Relations: Implications of the New Context of Interdependence. – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No. 6. P. 172-176 (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2005.06.11

Kompleksnaya mezhdistsiplinarnaya metodika RUDN situatsionnogo analiza mezhdunarodnykh konfliktov [Integrated Interdisciplinary Methodology of PFUR of Situation Analysis of International Conflicts]. Ed. by D.A. Degterev, V.G. Dzhangiryan, V.A. Tsvyk. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo RUDN. 2014. 110 p. (In Russ.)

Kosolapov N.A. Theme 7. The Subjects of World Politics and International Relations: The Phenomenon, Criteria, Typology Bases. – Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. 1998. No. 12. P. 123-134. (In Russ.)

Kozyrev V.A. Chronic Conflict and the Factor of China in the Asia-Pacific. – International Trends. 2006. Vol. 4. No. 2 (11). P. 59-77. (In Russ.)

Liebowitz S.J., Margolis E.S. Path Dependence, Lock-in, and History. – The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 1995. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 205-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1706450

Maliniak D., Oakes A., Peterson S., Tierney M. International Relations in the US Academy. – International Studies Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 437-464. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00653.x

Martynov B.F. “Relic” and Potential Conflicts in Latin America. – International Trends. 2006. Vol. 4. No. 2 (11). P. 48-58. (In Russ.)

McDermott R. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1998. 256 p.

Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens W.W. The Limits to Growth. (Russ. ed.: Meadows D.H., Meadows D.L., Randers J., Behrens W.W. Predely rosta. Doklad po proektu Rimskogo kluba “Slozhnye polozheniya chelovechestva”. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta. 1991. 207 p.)

Mearsheimer J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W&W Norton & Co. 2001. 448 p.

Mearsheimer J., Walt S. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad for International Relations. – European Journal of International Relations. 2013. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494320

Melikhov S.V. Kolichestvennye metody v amerikanskoi politologii [Quantitative Methods in American Political Science]. Moscow: Nauka. 1979. 203 p.

Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ed. by Sprinz D., Wolinsky- Nahmias Y. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2004. 424 p.

Montbrial T., de. Action and Reaction in the World System. (Russ. ed.: Montbrial T., de. Deistvie i sistema mira. Moscow: MGIMO-University, ROSSPEN. 2005. 488 с.)

Morton R. Methods and Models. A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. 326 p.

Nicholson M. Formal Theories in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989. 254 p.

Putnam R. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. – International Organization. 1988. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 427-460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027697

Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence. Ed. by J.D. Singer. 1968. New York: Free Press. 394 p.

Risse T. “Let’s Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics. – International Organisation. 2000. Vol. 54. No. 1. P. 1-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551109

Risse T. International Norms and Domestic Change: Arguing and Communicative Behavior in the Human Rights Ares. – Politics & Society. 1999. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 529-559. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329299027004004

Rose A. The Foreign Service and Foreign Trade: Embassies as Export Promotion. – World Economy. 2007. Vol. 30. No. 1. P. 22-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2007.00870.x

Schelling T. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2006. 272 p.

Singer D. The Level-Of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. – World Politics. 1961. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 77-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2009557

Situatsionnye analizy. Vypusk 2 [Situational Analysis. No. 2]. Ed. by T.A. Shakleina. Moscow: MGIMO-University. 2012. 276 p. (In Russ.)

Snidal D. The Game Theory of International Politics. – World Politics. 1985. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 25-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2010350

Stone R. The Use and Abuse of Game Theory in International Relations: The Theory of Moves. – Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2001. Vol. 45. No. 2. P. 216-244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045002004

Temby O. What Are Levels of Analysis and What Do They Contribute to International Relations Theory? – Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2013. 25 November. URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1 0.1080/09557571.2013.831032 (accessed 01.06.2017).

The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Ed. by Reus-Smit Ch., Snidal D. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. 788 p.

Tsygankov P.A. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Theory of International Relations]. Moscow: Gardariki. 2007. 557 p.

Waltz K. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press. 2001. 263 p.

Wendt A.E. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. – International Organization. 1987. Vol. 41. No. 3. P. 335-370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830002751X

Zobnin A.V. Balance of Power Principle Revisited: The Neoinstitutionalism Approach to Defining the Classical Category. – International Trends. 2014. Vol. 12. No. 3 (38). P. 55-69. (In Russ.)

Zobrik Yu.A., Khudaikulova A.V. Case Study Methodology. – International Trends. 2007. Vol. 5. No. 2 (14). P.144-146. 

See also:

Mezhuyev B.V.,
Prospects of political modernization of Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Misurov D.A.,
Symbolic Modelling in Russia: Transformations of the Imperial-Soviet-Presidential Model. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No3

Musikhin G.I.,
Models of Modern Capitalism in New Political Economy: between Science and Ideology. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No3

Akhremenko A.S.,
Dynamics Aproach to Mathematical Modelling of Political Stability. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No3

Timofeyeva L.N., Ryabchenko N.A., Malysheva O.P., Gnedash A.A.,
The digital socio-political agenda: theoretical model tested on the Russian case “Coronavirus-2020”. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No5

---