Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2023
Drawing on recent debates in English School (ES) theory, this article develops an analytical framework for examining how states use multilateral institutions, or what ES theorists call ‘secondary institutions’, to reshape ‘primary institutions’, i.e. fundamental practices in international society. The framework highlights the role of states’ agency in international institutional change by shedding light on strategies that they employ to bring about changes in primary institutions. It posits that, although they can seek to directly remould primary institutions, states in practice often seek to bring about primary institutional changes through existing or newly formed secondary institutions and that this is especially the case at the level of regional international societies (RISs). The article demonstrates the utility of the framework by using it to analyse the case of Russia’s peacekeeping policy in the post-Soviet regional international society (PSRIS), focusing on its efforts to institutionalise the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) as an alternative ‘peacekeeping’ actor.
1 Barry Buzan, ‘The English School: An underexploited resource in IR’, Review of International Studies, 27:3 (2001), pp. 471–88 (p. 479); Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
2 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 167; Samuel M. Makinda, ‘Hedley Bull and global governance: A note on IR theory’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 56:3 (2002), pp. 361–71 (p. 366).
3 Buzan, From International to World Society?, pp. 183–4.
4 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 167.
5 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 167.
6 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 181.
7 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 187.
8 Barry Buzan, An Introduction to the English School of International Relations (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014), p. 17.
9 Buzan, Introduction to the English School, p. 30.
10 Kilian Spandler, ‘The political international society: Change in primary and secondary institutions’, Review of International Studies, 41:3 (2015), pp. 601–22 (p. 602).
11 Cornelia Navari and Tonny Brems Knudsen, ‘Introduction: A new approach to international organization’, in Tonny Brems Knudsen and Cornelia Navari (eds), International Organization in the Anarchical Society (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), pp. 1–20 (p. 8).
12 Navari and Knudsen, ‘Introduction’, pp. 8–9.
13 Tonny Brems Knudsen, ‘Fundamental institutions and international organizations: Theorizing continuity and change’, in Knudsen and Navari (eds), International Organization in the Anarchical Society, pp. 23–50 (p. 33).
14 Knudsen, ‘Fundamental institutions and international organizations: Theorizing continuity and change’, pp. 38–9, emphasis in original.
15 Cornelia Navari, ‘Agents, structures and institutions: Some thoughts on method’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33:4 (2020), pp. 467–70 (p. 467), emphasis in original.
16 Cornelia Navari, ‘Modelling the relations of fundamental institutions and international organizations’, in Knudsen and Navari (eds), International Organization in the Anarchical Society, pp. 51–75 (pp. 66–8).
17 Navari, ‘Modelling the relations of fundamental institutions and international organizations’, p. 68.
18 See Cornelia Navari, ‘The concept of practice in the English School’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:4 (2010), pp. 611–30.
19 Cornelia Navari, ‘Agents versus structures in English School theory: Is co-constitution the answer?’, Journal of International Political Theory, 16:2 (2020), pp. 249–67 (p. 263).
20 Cornelia Navari, ‘What the classical English School was trying to explain, and why its members were not interested in causal explanation’, in Cornelia Navari (ed.), Theorising International Society: English School Methods (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), pp. 39–57 (p. 46), emphasis in original.
21 Charlotta Friedner Parrat, ‘On the evolution of primary institutions of international society’, International Studies Quarterly, 61:3 (2017), pp. 623–30 (pp. 628–9).
22 Antje Wiener, A Theory of Contestation (New York: Springer, 2014), p. 21, emphasis added.
23 Spandler, ‘The political international society’, pp. 618, 620, 622.
24 Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken, ‘The dynamics of dissent: When actions are louder than words’, International Affairs, 95:3 (2019), pp. 515–33 (pp. 515–16, 519), emphasis added.
25 Stimmer and Wisken, ‘The dynamics of dissent’, p. 522.
26 Navari and Knudsen, ‘Introduction’, pp. 8–9.
27 Navari and Knudsen, ‘Introduction’, p. 9.
28 Kenneth W. Abbott and Duncan Snidal, ‘Why states act through formal international organizations’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42:1 (1998), pp. 3–32.
29 Abbott and Snidal, ‘Why states act through formal international organizations’, pp. 4–5.
30 Inis L. Claude Jr., ‘Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations’, International Organization, 20:3 (1966), pp. 367–79.
31 Navari, ‘Modelling the relations of fundamental institutions and international organizations’, pp. 68–72. See also Navari, ‘Agents versus structures’, pp. 261–3; Navari, ‘Agents, structures and institutions’, pp. 468–9.
32 Navari and Knudsen, ‘Introduction’, p. 9.
33 See Ian Manners, ‘Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40:2 (2002), pp. 235–58.
34 Hiski Haukkala, ‘The European Union as a regional normative hegemon: The case of European Neighbourhood Policy’, in Richard G. Whitman (ed.), Normative Power Europe: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 45–64.
35 Spyros Blavoukos and Dimitris Bourantonis, ‘Inter-organizational relations in a nested environment: Regional organizations in the UN’, in Stephen Aris, Aglaya Snetkov and Andreas Wenger (eds), Inter-organizational Relations in International Security: Cooperation and Competition (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), pp. 38–53 (p. 43).
36 See Michael Barnett, ‘Partners in peace? The UN, regional organizations, and peace-keeping’, Review of International Studies, 21:4 (1995), pp. 411–33; Hikaru Yamashita, ‘Peacekeeping cooperation between the United Nations and regional organisations’, Review of International Studies, 38:1 (2012), pp. 165–86.
37 Julia C. Morse and Robert O. Keohane, ‘Contested multilateralism’, Review of International Organizations, 9:4 (2014), pp. 385–412 (pp. 392–3); Navari, ‘Agents, structures and institutions’, p. 468.
38 Barry Buzan, ‘China’s rise in English School perspective’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 18:3 (2018), pp. 449–76 (p. 461), emphasis in original. See also Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era (Colchester: ECPR Press, 2007), pp. 241–6.
39 Richard Sakwa, Russia against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 128–9, 134.
40 Sakwa, Russia against the Rest, p. 131, emphasis added.
41 Tatiana Romanova, ‘Russia’s neorevisionist challenge to the liberal international order’, The International Spectator, 53:1 (2018), pp. 76–91 (pp. 77–8).
42 Roy Allison, ‘Russian revisionism, legal discourse and the “rules-based” international order’, Europe-Asia Studies, 72:6 (2020), pp. 976–95 (pp. 980, 983–4).
43 Sakwa, Russia against the Rest, p. 130, emphasis added.
44 Samir Puri, ‘The strategic hedging of Iran, Russia, and China: Juxtaposing participation in the global system with regional revisionism’, Journal of Global Security Studies, 2:4 (2017), pp. 307–23.
45 Ruth Deyermond, ‘The uses of sovereignty in twenty-first century Russian foreign policy’, Europe-Asia Studies, 68:6 (2016), pp. 957–84 (p. 957); Katarzyna Kaczmarska, ‘Russia’s droit de regard: Pluralist norms and the sphere of influence’, Global Discourse, 5:3 (2015), pp. 434–48 (p. 443).
46 See S. Neil MacFarlane, ‘Russian perspectives on order and justice’, in Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell (eds), Order and Justice in International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 176–206 (p. 201).
47 Bettina Renz, Russia’s Military Revival (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018), pp. 22–30.
48 Kaczmarska, ‘Russia’s droit de regard’, p. 439.
49 See Ruth Deyermond, ‘Matrioshka hegemony? Multi-levelled hegemonic competition and security in post-Soviet Central Asia’, Review of International Studies, 35:1 (2009), pp. 151–73.
50 Roy Allison, ‘Contested understandings of sovereignty, the use of force and the wider international legal order: The political context’, European Leadership Network, available at: {https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ELN-Narratives-Conference-Allison.pdf}.
51 Buzan, Introduction to the English School, pp. 103–4.
52 Buzan, From International to World Society?, pp. 183, 187, 246–7.
53 Renz, Russia’s Military Revival, pp. 40–7. See also Andrey Makarychev and Viatcheslav Morozov, ‘Multilateralism, multipolarity, and beyond: A menu of Russia’s policy strategies’, Global Governance, 17:3 (2011), pp. 353–73.
54 See, for example, Elana Wilson Rowe and Stina Torjesen, ‘Key features of Russian multilateralism’, in Elana Wilson Rowe and Stina Torjesen (eds), The Multilateral Dimension in Russian Foreign Policy (Abingdon: Routledge, 2009), pp. 1–20 (p. 2); André Gerrits, ‘Russia in the changing global order: Multipolarity, multilateralism, and sovereignty’, in Madeleine O. Hosli and Joren Selleslaghs (eds), The Changing Global Order: Challenges and Prospects (Cham: Springer, 2020), pp. 85–107 (p. 97).
55 Paul F. Diehl, International Peacekeeping (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), p. 13.
56 Tonny Brems Knudsen, ‘Fundamental institutions and international organizations: Solidarist architecture’, in Knudsen and Navari (eds), International Organization in the Anarchical Society, pp. 175–202 (p. 177).
57 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 187.
58 See Peter Wilson and Joanne Yao, ‘International sanctions as a primary institution of international society’, in Knudsen and Navari (eds), International Organization in the Anarchical Society, pp. 127–48.
59 Buzan, From International to World Society?, pp. 184, 187.
60 Knudsen, ‘Fundamental institutions and international organizations: Theorizing continuity and change’, p. 33.
61 Hilaire McCoubrey and Nigel D. White, The Blue Helmets: Legal Regulation of United Nations Military Operations (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 1996), pp. 69–90.
62 Pia Christina Wood and David S. Sorenson, ‘Introduction’, in David S. Sorenson and Pia Christina Wood (eds), The Politics of Peacekeeping in the Post-Cold War Era (Abingdon: Frank Cass, 2005), pp. 1–8 (pp. 2–3).
63 Gwinyayi Albert Dzinesa, ‘A comparative perspective of UN peacekeeping in Angola and Namibia’, International Peacekeeping, 11:4 (2004), pp. 644–63 (p. 648).
64 Jane Boulden, Peace Enforcement: The United Nations Experience in Congo, Somalia, and Bosnia (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001), pp. 1–6.
65 Buzan, From International to World Society?, pp. 182–4.
66 Maxim Bratersky and Alexander Lukin, ‘The Russian perspective on UN peacekeeping: Today and tomorrow’, in Cedric de Coning, Chiyuki Aoi, and John Karlsrud (eds), UN Peacekeeping Doctrine in a New Era: Adapting to Stabilisation, Protection and New Threats (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), pp. 132–51 (pp. 139–41).
67 Roy Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 126.
68 See Dov Lynch, Russian Peacekeeping Strategies in the CIS: The Cases of Moldova, Georgia and Tajikistan (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000), pp. 109–72.
69 Maxim Shashenkov, ‘Russian peacekeeping in the “near abroad”’, Survival, 36:3 (1994), pp. 46–69 (p. 49).
70 Pavel K. Baev, ‘Russia’s experiments and experience in conflict management and peacemaking’, International Peacekeeping, 1:3 (1994), pp. 245–60 (pp. 247–8).
71 Dov Lynch, ‘Post-imperial peacekeeping: Russia in the CIS’, available at: {https://fhs.brage.unit.no/fhs-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/99555/IFSInfo0203.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}; Lena Jonson and Clive Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, in Lena Jonson and Clive Archer (eds), Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996), pp. 3–29 (p. 4). See also Dov Lynch, ‘Peacekeeping in Transnistria: Cooperation or competition?’, The International Spectator, 41:4 (2006), pp. 55–67.
72 See S. Neil MacFarlane and Albrecht Schnabel, ‘Russia’s approach to peacekeeping’, International Journal, 50:2 (1995), pp. 294–324 (p. 318); Shashenkov, ‘Russian peacekeeping’, pp. 50–1.
73 Jonson and Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, p. 9.
74 Roy Allison, ‘Peacekeeping in the Soviet successor states’, available at: {https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUISSFiles/cp018e.pdf}; Baev, ‘Russia’s experiments’, pp. 246, 250–3.
75 Baev, ‘Russia’s experiments’, p. 251.
76 Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention, pp. 127–8; Baev, ‘Russia’s experiments’, pp. 246–53; Anthony Kellett, ‘Soviet and Russian peacekeeping 1948–1998: Historical overview and assessment’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 12:2 (1999), pp. 1–47 (pp. 20, 25).
77 Allison, ‘Peacekeeping in the Soviet successor states’; MacFarlane and Schnabel, ‘Russia’s approach to peacekeeping’, p. 308; Shashenkov, ‘Russian peacekeeping’, p. 60.
78 Domitilla Sagramoso, ‘Russian peacekeeping policies’, in John Mackinlay and Peter Cross (eds), Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2003), pp. 13–33 (p. 20).
79 Kellett, ‘Soviet and Russian peacekeeping’, p. 37.
80 Jonson and Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, p. 8.
81 Allison, ‘Peacekeeping in the Soviet successor states’.
82 Kellett, ‘Soviet and Russian peacekeeping’, p. 37; Lynch, ‘Post-imperial peacekeeping’.
83 UN Doc A/48/PV.6, 28 September 1993, p. 15.
84 Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention, p. 129; Jonson and Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, p. 18.
85 Allison, ‘Peacekeeping in the Soviet successor states’; Anna Kreikemeyer and Andrei V. Zagorski, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)’, in Jonson and Archer (eds), Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia, pp. 157–71 (p. 157).
86 See Center on International Cooperation, Annual Review of Global Peace Operations 2008 (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2008), p. 90; Kreikemeyer and Zagorski, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States’, pp. 161–2.
87 Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention, pp. 130–1; Jonson and Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, p. 17; Kreikemeyer and Zagorski, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States’, pp. 160–1.
88 Ian Hurd, ‘Legitimacy, power, and the symbolic life of the UN Security Council’, Global Governance, 8:1 (2002), pp. 35–51 (p. 44); Jonson and Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, p. 10; Paul Taylor and Karen Smith, ‘The United Nations (UN)’, in Jonson and Archer (eds), Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia, pp. 189–212 (pp. 200–1).
89 Kreikemeyer and Zagorski, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States’, p. 169.
90 Baev, ‘Russia’s experiments’, p. 252; Jonson and Archer, ‘Russia and peacekeeping in Eurasia’, p. 18; Lynch, ‘Post-imperial peacekeeping’.
91 Piotr Switalski and Ingrid Tersman, ‘The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)’, in Jonson and Archer (eds), Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia, pp. 173–87 (pp. 179–80).
92 See Jakub M. Godzimirski, ‘Russia and the OSCE: From high expectations to denial?’, in Rowe and Torjesen (eds), The Multilateral Dimension in Russian Foreign Policy, pp. 121–41 (pp. 126–7); Ettore Greco, ‘Third party peace-keeping and the interaction between Russia and the OSCE in the CIS area’, in Michael Bothe, Natalino Ronzitti, and Allan Rosas (eds), The OSCE in the Maintenance of Peace and Security: Conflict Prevention, Crisis Management and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1997), pp. 267–88 (p. 272).
93 UN Doc A/RES/48/237, 24 March 1994; Taylor and Smith, ‘The United Nations’, p. 201.
94 See Kreikemeyer and Zagorski, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States’, p. 169.
95 Taylor and Smith, ‘The United Nations’, p. 201.
96 Kellett, ‘Soviet and Russian peacekeeping’, pp. 8–9; Switalski and Tersman, ‘The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’, pp. 177–8.
97 Lynch, ‘Post-imperial peacekeeping’.
98 Lynch, ‘Post-imperial peacekeeping’.
99 Alexander A. Pikayev, ‘The Russian domestic debate on policy toward the “near abroad”’, in Jonson and Archer (eds), Peacekeeping and the Role of Russia in Eurasia, pp. 51–66 (p. 66).
100 Wolfgang Zellner, ‘Russia and the OSCE: From high hopes to disillusionment’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18:3 (2005), pp. 389–402 (pp. 396–8).
101 Allison, ‘Peacekeeping in the Soviet successor states’; Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention, pp. 124–5.
102 See Paul Kubicek, ‘The Commonwealth of Independent States: An example of failed regionalism?’, Review of International Studies, 35:S1 (2009), pp. 237–56.
103 Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention, p. 133.
104 Navari, ‘Modelling the relations of fundamental institutions and international organizations’, p. 68.
105 Stina Torjesen, ‘Russia as a military great power: The uses of the CSTO and the SCO in Central Asia’, in Rowe and Torjesen (eds), The Multilateral Dimension in Russian Foreign Policy, pp. 181–92 (pp. 183–6).
106 Renz, Russia’s Military Revival, pp. 44–5.
107 Elena Kropatcheva, ‘Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation: Multilateral policy or unilateral ambitions?’, Europe-Asia Studies, 68:9 (2016), pp. 1526–52 (p. 1530).
108 Roy Allison, ‘Virtual regionalism, regime structures and regime security in Central Asia’, Central Asian Survey, 27:2 (2008), pp. 185–202.
109 Roy Allison, ‘Protective integration and security policy coordination: Comparing the SCO and CSTO’, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11:3 (2018), pp. 297–338.
110 UN, ‘Agreement on the peacekeeping activities of the Collective Security Treaty Organization’, United Nations Treaty Series, 2632 (2009), pp. 29–50.
111 See Yulia Nikitina, ‘Security cooperation in the post-Soviet area within the Collective Security Treaty Organization’, ISPI Analysis, no. 152 (January 2013), available at: {https://www.ispionline.it/sites/default/files/pubblicazioni/analysis_152_2013.pdf}.
112 See Igor Davidzon, Regional Security Governance in Post-Soviet Eurasia: The History and Effectiveness of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), pp. 82–3.
113 Allison, Russia, the West, and Military Intervention, p. 146; Alexander Nikitin, ‘The Russian Federation’, in Alex J. Bellamy and Paul D. Williams (eds), Providing Peacekeepers: The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 158–79 (p. 178). In October 2012, CPF’s first annual exercise, named Unbreakable Brotherhood, was held in Kazakhstan. On Unbreakable Brotherhood, see Marcel de Haas, ‘War games of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization: Drills on the move!’, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 29:3 (2016), pp. 378–406.
114 UN Doc A/RES/59/50, 2 December 2004.
115 UN Doc A/RES/64/256, 2 March 2010, emphasis in original.
116 UN Doc S/2016/867, 14 October 2016.
117 UN Doc S/PV.7796, 28 October 2016, p. 23.
118 S/PV.7796, p. 10.
119 S/PV.7796, p. 11.
120 S/PV.7796, p. 19.
121 S/PV.7796, p. 20.
122 S/PV.7796, p. 21.
123 UN Doc A/RES/73/331, 25 July 2019, p. 3, emphasis in original.
124 UN Doc A/73/PV.101, 25 July 2019, p. 14.
125 A/73/PV.101, p. 15.
126 Janko Šćepanović, ‘Was the Nagorno-Karabakh deal a missed opportunity for the CSTO?’, The Diplomat (14 November 2020), available at: {https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/was-the-nagorno-karabakh-deal-a-missed-opportunity-for-the-csto/}.
127 George Barros, ‘Putin’s “peacekeepers” will support Russian wars’, available at: {http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/CSTO%20November%20Update.pdf}.
128 CSTO, ‘The CSTO Collective Security Council adopted the Declaration and Statement on the formation of a just and sustainable world order’, available at: {https://en.odkb-csto.org/news/news_odkb/sovet-kollektivnoy-bezopasnosti-odkb-prinyal-deklaratsiyu-i-zayavlenie-o-formirovanii-spravedlivogo-/}; CSTO, ‘Declaration of the Collective Security Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organization’, available at: {https://en.odkb-csto.org/news/news_odkb/deklaratsiya-soveta-kollektivnoy-bezopasnosti-organizatsii-dogovora-o-kollektivnoy-bezopasnosti-prin/}.
129 I thank one of the anonymous reviewers for this phrase.
130 BBC, ‘Kazakhstan: Why are there riots and why are Russian troops there?’, available at: {https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59894266}.
131 Radio Free Europe, ‘Russia-led military alliance completes withdrawal from Kazakhstan’, available at: {https://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-csto-troops-withdrawal-security/31661294.html}.
132 The Astana Times, ‘CSTO peacekeepers complete their mission, withdraw from Kazakhstan’, available at: {https://astanatimes.com/2022/01/csto-peacekeepers-complete-their-mission-withdraw-from-kazakhstan/}.
133 Victoria Hudson, ‘The impact of Russian soft power in Kazakhstan: Creating an enabling environment for cooperation between Nur-Sultan and Moscow’, Journal of Political Power, 15:3 (2022), pp. 469–94 (pp. 484–5); Bruce Pannier, ‘How the intervention in Kazakhstan revitalized the Russian-led CSTO’, available at: {https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/03/how-the-intervention-in-kazakhstan-revitalized-the-russian-led-csto/}.
134 Vladimir Socor, ‘Russian-led mission in Kazakhstan unveils new peacekeeping model (Part One)’, Eurasia Daily Monitor (19 January 2022), available at: {https://jamestown.org/program/russian-led-mission-in-kazakhstan-unveils-new-peacekeeping-model-part-one/}; Vladimir Socor, ‘Russian-led mission in Kazakhstan unveils new peacekeeping model (Part Two)’, Eurasia Daily Monitor (21 January 2022), available at: {https://jamestown.org/program/russian-led-mission-in-kazakhstan-unveils-new-peacekeeping-model-part-two/}.
135 Allison, ‘Protective integration’, p. 299; Alexander Cooley, ‘Kazakhstan called for assistance. Why did Russia dispatch troops so quickly?’, The Washington Post (9 January 2022), available at: {https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/09/kazakhstan-called-assistance-why-did-russia-dispatch-troops-so-quickly/}.
136 Hudson, ‘The impact of Russian soft power in Kazakhstan’, p. 484.
137 Anna Borshchevskaya, ‘War for peace: How Moscow expands its clout under the guise of “peacekeeping operations”’, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (24 January 2022), available at: {https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/war-peace-how-moscow-expands-its-clout-under-guise-peacekeeping-operations}.
138 Borshchevskaya, ‘War for peace’.
139 CSTO, ‘On May 16, in Moscow, the CSTO member states leaders met to mark the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Collective Security Treaty and the 20th anniversary of the CSTO’, available at: {https://en.odkb-csto.org/news/news_odkb/v-moskve-16-maya-proydet-vstrecha-glav-gosudarstv-chlenov-odkb-posvyashchennaya-30-letiyu-podpisaniya/#loaded}.
140 UN Doc S/PV.8967, 16 February 2022.
141 S/PV.8967, p. 5.
142 S/PV.8967, p. 6.
143 Catherine Putz, ‘Kyrgyzstan cancels CSTO “Indestructible Brotherhood” military exercises’, The Diplomat (11 October 2022), available at: {https://thediplomat.com/2022/10/kyrgyzstan-cancels-csto-indestructible-brotherhood-military-exercises/}.
144 Chris Rickleton, ‘Russia’s unhappy club: The CSTO’, Radio Free Europe (12 October 2022), available at: {https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-club-csto-ukraine-military-alliance/32079498.html}; Janko Šćepanović, ‘Can Russia still be a dependable “sheriff” for Eurasia?’, The Diplomat (30 September 2022), available at: {https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/can-russia-still-be-a-dependable-sheriff-for-eurasia/}.
145 Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 183; Buzan, Introduction to the English School, p. 154.
