چکیده:
What is the focus and center of attention in this article is the issue of the behavioral pattern of great powers in managing international crises, under the influence of specific conditions and order. Based on how the structure and process of the international system are, the way crises are managed and the behavioral pattern of states will also be different; therefore, this article, by applying the theory of structural realism, seeks to find the pattern of crisis management by great powers in the unipolar-multipolar system; in this regard, the main question of the article is how the requirements of the unipolar-multipolar system have affected the behavioral pattern of great powers in managing international crises? Accordingly, the hypothesis is that the constraints of the unipolar-multipolar system have driven the behavioral pattern of great powers in the arena of international politics in managing 'asymmetric balance of power' towards crises. Asymmetric balance of power, as a behavioral pattern, utilizes different tools such as institutional tools, coalition tools, aggressive tools, and sanction tools to manage crises. The level of analysis of the research, in accordance with the theory of structural realism, follows the third image or the level of the international system, and the research method is also based on a descriptive-analytical research strategy.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Based on this, the hypothesis is that the limitations of the unipolar-multipolar system have driven the behavioral pattern of great powers toward "asymmetric balance of power" in the arena of international politics in crisis management.
In other words, from the perspective of structural realism, depending on the order and system in which states live, they manifest and exhibit different patterns of action and behavior; for example, during the Cold War era, international crises were primarily managed by the United States and the former Soviet Union.
In a "bipolar" world, the possibility of miscalculation was much lower, and there was less probability that states in this system would make mistakes regarding the objectives of other parties, because the rules of the game had become clear over time, and both sides had identified each other's limitations (Mearsheimer, 2009: 366); therefore, in a bipolar system, in crisis situations, crisis management, despite the transparency in the international system and 2 bipolarity between the two great powers existing in the system, based on the "balance of power approach" 1.
Crisis management based on the unilateralism pattern In the order based on the "Uni-linear System 1", the political arrangement of power, unlike the balance of power system, is "hierarchical" and "anarchic hierarchical"; meaning that in the international system, a supreme power superior to other powers proceeds to issue the rules and regulations of the international system based on its own logic of power and norms.
(
, 
, 
)
