Theory of international relations. Theory of International Relations: Reader Compilation, scientific editing and comments p.A
The most established provisions and conclusions of the world international political science are generalized and systematized; its basic concepts and the most famous theoretical directions are given: an idea is given of the current state of this discipline in our country and abroad. Particular attention is paid to the globalization of world development, changes in the nature of threats to international security, and the characteristics of the new generation of conflicts.
For students of higher educational institutions studying in the areas and specialties of “International Relations”, “Regional Studies”, “Public Relations”, “Sociology”. "Political Science", as well as undergraduates, graduate students and university teachers.
Object and subject of international political science.
Sometimes we come across the opinion that the distinction between the subject and the object of science is not essential for the awareness and understanding of its features. that it is scholastic in nature and can only distract from truly important theoretical problems. I think such a distinction is still necessary.
Objective reality, which exists outside and independently of our consciousness, differs from those studying various aspects of scientific disciplines. The latter reflect and describe it, firstly, always with some “delay”, and secondly, with a certain “distortion” of the essence of the ongoing processes and phenomena. Human knowledge, as is known, gives only a conditional, approximate picture of the world, never achieving absolute knowledge about it. In addition, every science, one way or another, builds its own logic, which is subject to the internal laws of its development and does not coincide with the logic of development of the reality it studies. In any science, in one form or another, a person is inevitably “present”, introducing into it a certain element of “subjectivity”. After all, if reality itself, which acts as the object of science, exists independently and independently of the consciousness of the subject cognizing it, then the formation and development of this science, its subject are determined precisely by the social subject of cognition, who, on the basis of certain needs, identifies one or another side in the cognitive object and studies it with the corresponding methods and means. The object exists before the subject and can be studied by a variety of scientific disciplines.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 9
Chapter 1. Object and subject of international political science 19
1. Concept and criteria of international relations 20.
2. World politics 27
3. The relationship between domestic and foreign policy 30
4. Subject of international political science 37
Literature 44
Chapter 2. The problem of method in the theory of international relations 46
1. Significance of Method Problem 46
2. Methods of situation analysis 50
Observation 51
Studying documents 51
Comparison 52
3. Explicative methods 54
Content analysis 54
Event analysis 54
Cognitive mapping 55
Experiment 57
4 Prognostic methods 58
Delphi method 59
Building scenarios 59
Systematic approach.60
5. Analysis of the decision-making process 70
Literature 75
Chapter 3. The problem of patterns of international relations 77
1; On the nature of laws in the field of international relations 78
2. The content of the laws of international relations 82.
3. Universal patterns of international relations 89
Literature 94
Chapter 4. Traditions, paradigms and disputes in TMO 95
1. Traditions: international relations in the history of socio-political thought 97
2. “Canonical” paradigms: basic provisions 105
Liberal-idealistic paradigm 106
Political realism 109
Marxist-Leninist paradigm 113
3. “Great debates”: the place of political realism 117
Literature 122
Chapter 5. Modern schools and directions in the theory of international relations 125
1. The dispute between neorealism and neoliberalism 126
Neorealism 126
Neoliberalism 132
The main provisions of the dispute between neorealism and neoliberalism 136
2. International political economy and neo-Marxism 140
International Political Economy 140
Neo-Marxism 149
3. Sociology of international relations 155.
Literature 163
Chapter 6. International system 167
1. Basic concepts of system theory 168
2. Features and main directions of the systematic approach in the analysis of international relations 173
3. Types and structures of international systems 178
4. Laws of functioning and transformation of international systems 184
Literature 192
Chapter 7. Environment of the system of international relations 193
1. Features of the environment of international relations 194
2. Social environment. Features of the modern stage of world civilization 196
3. Biosocial environment. The role of geopolitics in the science of international relations 201
4. Globalization of the international environment 212
The concept of globalization in comparison with other concepts that are similar in meaning 214
The question of the historical uniqueness of globalization 217
Main components of globalization 219
Debate over the consequences of globalization 221
Literature 225
Chapter 8. Participants in international relations 228
1. The essence and role of the state as a participant in international relations 231
2. Non-state participants in international relations 238
Main features and typology of IPO 239
General characteristics and types of INGOs 242
3. The paradox of participation 248
Literature 252
Chapter 9. Goals, means and strategies of participants in international relations 254
1. On the content of the concepts of “goals” and “means” 254
2. Strategy as a unity of goals and means 267
General understanding of strategy 267
Big strategy.; 270
Crisis management strategies 271
Peace Strategies 272
Strategy and Diplomacy 275
3. Force and violence as part of goals and means 277
Literature 286
Chapter 10. National interests: concept, structure, methodological and political role 288
1. Discussions about the legality of use and the content of the concept of “national interest” 288
2. Criteria and structure of national interest 298
On the unconscious element in the structure of national interest 304
3. Globalization and national interest 307
Literature 317
Chapter 11. International security 320
1. The content of the concept of “security” and the main theoretical approaches to its study 320
2. Changing security environment and new global threats 331
3. New safety concepts 338
Cooperative Security Concept 339
Human Security Concept 343
Democratic Peace Theory 344
Literature 347
Chapter 12. The problem of legal regulation of international relations 349
1. Historical forms and features of the regulatory role of international law 350
2. Features of modern international law and its basic principles 353
Basic principles of international law 358
3. Human rights law and international humanitarian law 360
Right character of a person 360
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) 364
Concept of humanitarian intervention 367
4. Interaction of law and morality in international relations 372
Literature 376
Chapter 13. The ethical dimension of international relations 378
1. Morality and law in international relations: general and specific 379
2. Variety of interpretations of international morality 382
Confessional and cultural representations 383
Conflict of theoretical schools 385
Holism, individualism, deontology 390
3. Basic imperatives of international morality in the light of globalization 395
The main requirements of international morality 395
Globalization and new normativism 398
On the effectiveness of moral norms in international relations 401
Literature 404
Chapter 14. Conflicts in international relations 406
1. The concept of conflict. Features of international conflicts during the Cold War era 407
Concept, types and functions of conflict 407
Conflicts and crises 410
Features and functions of conflict in a bipolar world 412
Conflict resolution: traditional methods
and institutional procedures 413
2. Main directions in the study of international conflicts 417
Strategic Studies 417
Conflict Studies 420
World Studies 423
3. Features of “new generation conflicts” 426
General context 426
Reasons, participants, content 428
Settlement mechanisms 431
Literature 438
Chapter 15. International cooperation 440
1. Concept and types of international cooperation 440
2. Interstate cooperation from the standpoint of political realism 443
3. Theory of international regimes 447
4. Sociological approach to the analysis of international cooperation 450
5. Cooperation and integration processes 457
Literature 468
Chapter 16. Social foundations of international order 470
1. The concept of international order and its historical types 470
The concept of “international order” 470
Historical types of international order 475
Post-war international order 479
2. Political science and sociological approaches to the problem of international order 484
3. Foreign and domestic scientists on the prospects of a new world order 492
Literature 504
Instead of conclusion 507
Appendix 1. Some international principles, doctrines, theories. International organizations, treaties and agreements 510
Appendix 2. Internet resources devoted to research in the field of international relations (A.B. Tsrugitt) | 538
Name index 581
Subject index 587.
“THE THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS P.A. Tsygankov* MORTON KAPLAN AND SYSTEMIC RESEARCH OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS The article is dedicated to the 55th anniversary...”
Vestn. Moscow un-ta. Ser. 25. International relations and world politics. 2012. No. 1
THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
P.A. Tsygankov*
MORTON KAPLAN AND SYSTEMS RESEARCH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
The article is dedicated to the 55th anniversary of the publication of Morton's book
Kaplan “System and Process in International Politics”, which
significant influence on the development of international political theory.
An assessment is made of the typology of international systems proposed by M. Kaplan, based on two main criteria - the number of actors and the power configuration, and the forms of political behavior of states in the field of international relations. The scientific contribution of M. Kaplan's work and the lessons that can be drawn from contrasting the “scientific” approach with the “traditional” one are comprehended.
Key words: Morton Kaplan, theory of international relations, typology of international systems, system modeling, power configuration, behaviorism.
Nowadays, it is difficult to imagine an analysis of interstate relations, world processes, and even specific events in a particular region or country, not to mention research and attempts to forecast global politics, without referring to the foundations of the systems approach laid down in Morton Kaplan’s work “System and process in international politics", which was published more than half a century ago.
Today this research is no longer so widely known (compared, for example, with the works of G. Morgenthau, K. Waltz, St. Hoffman or J. Rosenau), but it would not be an exaggeration to say that its appearance left a significant imprint on the subsequent development of international political theory . It is no coincidence that already in the 1960s, M. Kaplan’s book caused a huge flow of specialized literature [see, for example: 6; 12; 14-17; 20; thirty; 32], which forced the author to clarify and clarify his positions and approaches, which remain relevant today.
*** Morton Kaplan is one of the representatives of the Chicago School of Political Science, known for its contribution to the development of empirical research and the formation of behavioral trends. Pavel Afanasyevich Tsygankov - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Faculty of Political Science of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov (e-mail: [email protected]).
leniya. The first generation of this school (1920-1930s), led by C. Merriam and two of his colleagues, G. Gosnell and G. Lasswell, which became known as the ecological school, was strongly influenced by the sociological approach. Its representatives were skeptical of traditional historical and institutional directions, insisting on the need to introduce new research methods based on a more systematic and objective verification of political scientific judgments with empirical data.
In the late 1940s - early 1950s, contradictions between supporters of the historical-institutional-legal (L. White and G. Pritchett) and behavioral or behaviorist (A. Solberg, D. Greenstone and D. McRoy) approaches intensified again.
G. Almond argued: “This was a time when democracy was being crushed on the European continent and when freedom of inquiry and scientific inquiry seemed to have little future in the light of developing events. It was only after World War II, in the context of the great scientific revolution in nuclear physics and molecular biology, the looming rivalry with the USSR, and the launch of Sputnik, that behaviorism reached national and global proportions. … In the first post-war decades there were many necessary and sufficient reasons for the behaviorist revolution.”
Under these conditions, a group of so-called Young Turks, led by D. Easton, M. Kaplan and L. Binder, advocated strengthening the empirical component in political science. The ensuing discussion required clarification of the philosophical foundations and general theoretical premises of the adherents of both directions. This second wave of the behaviorist movement gained its supporters on a national scale, facilitated by the innovative work of, in particular, such authors as H. Ilow, O. Early, W. Millet and G. Almond (a representative of the first wave).
G. Almond, G. Powell, S. Verba and G. Ickstein became pioneers of empirical comparative research, and M. Kaplan and F. Schumann were among the first to apply this approach to the study of international relations [for more details, see: 29].
Behaviorists sought to discover uniformity and repeatability in political behavior through the systematic selection and recording of empirical data that could be quantified and accurately measured. The results of such operations were to be used to test the validity of theoretical generalizations. At the same time, value judgments, questions of a philosophical nature, and ethical assessments were to be considered analytically distinct from the process of empirical examination. The systems approach fit entirely into this rationalistic tradition. It responded both to the methodological imperative of “modernism”—the use of quantitative research procedures and the formalization of scientific research—and to the desire to create a general theory.
Already at the end of the 1950s, the costs of the positivist tendency in political science seemed to have been successfully overcome. As S. Hoffman argued in 1959, “...all modern political science has a theoretical orientation, which is a reaction against the previous “hyperfactualism”, as well as the influence of the physical sciences, sociology, and communication sciences.”
However, in the science of international relations, the discussion continued, receiving after 1966 the name “second great controversy,” which affected precisely its theoretical orientation. Characterizing the views of the new generation of international experts, H.
Bull wrote:
“They strive for a theory of international relations, the provisions of which would be based on logical or mathematical proofs or on precise empirical verification procedures. Some of them believe that classical theories of international relations have no value and imagine themselves as the founders of an entirely new science. Others believe that the results of the classical approach had some value, and perhaps even regard them with a certain sympathy, like that with which the owner of a new brand of car contemplates an old model. However, in both cases they hope and believe that their own type of theory will completely supplant the classical type."
Having put forward seven arguments in defense of the classical approach to the study of international relations, H. Bull paid special attention to criticism of the theory of international systems by M. Kaplan, arguing that the models of international systems formulated by him and the basic rules characteristic of the behavior of each of them are in fact nothing more than "commonplace" gleaned from daily discussions about international relations and the general political structure that the world has or could have.
Responding to criticism, M. Kaplan emphasized that the basic concept of the work “System and Process in International Politics”
quite simple. If the number, type and behavior of states change over time, and if their military capabilities, economic resources and information also vary, then it is likely that some kind of relationship exists between these elements, through which systems with different structures and behavior can be distinguished. characteristic of different periods of history. This concept, the author argues, may not be entirely correct, but it does not seem meaningless for studying the issue of the influence of one or another type of international system on the foreign policy of states. To conduct such a study, systemic hypotheses are needed about the nature of the relationships between variables, and only after these hypotheses have been developed can history be studied to confirm or refute them. Without this, the investigator has no criterion by which he can select from the infinite variety of facts at his disposal. These initial hypotheses point to those areas of evidence that are most relevant to this type of research. There is reason to think that if hypotheses are wrong, this will become quite obvious when you try to use them.
“The main idea of this work,” writes M. Kaplan, “is that the development of knowledge about politics is possible only by considering data about it in terms of systems of action. An action system is a set of variable quantities that are different from the general parameters of the system and interconnected in such a way that the described patterns of their behavior reflect the internal relationships of the quantities among themselves, as well as the relationship of a group of these quantities with a group of quantities outside the system under consideration.”
We are talking about a typology of international systems based on two main criteria: the number of actors and the power configuration. The results that M. Kaplan arrived at allowed him to create such a typology and, taking into account the specified criteria, identify six types of international systems, or, more precisely, six equilibrium states of one ultra-stable international system. At the same time, only two types correspond to the real history of international politics: a “balance of power system”, in which only the main actors, i.e. states (or rather, great powers) have significant military and economic potential; and a “soft (flexible) bipolar system” (loose bipolar system), which includes, in addition to national actors (states), international intergovernmental organizations, i.e. supranational actors in international politics. This type of international system consists of both global, universal actors and actors belonging to one of two blocks.
The four other types of international systems that are described in the work of M. Kaplan are, in fact, some ideal models that have never existed in reality. Thus, a “tight bipolar system” assumes that every actor that does not belong to one of the two blocs loses any noticeable influence or disappears. "Universal system"
(universal system), or “universal integrated system”, is characterized by the fact that in it important power political functions are transferred from states to a universal (global) organization that has the right to determine the status of certain countries, allocate resources to them and monitor compliance with the agreed rules of international behavior. "Hierarchical system"
(hierarchical system) follows from the universal one, taking the form of a world state in which the role of specific countries is minimized. Finally, the “unit veto system” assumes that each actor (state or union of states) is able to effectively influence overall international politics, since it has the opportunity (associated, for example, with the possession of nuclear weapons) to protect itself from any other states or coalitions of states.
This typology is not immutable. Subsequently, the author identified such variants of the “flexible bipolar system” as “very flexible bipolar system”, “discharge system” and “unstable block system”. As a variant of the “single veto system”
he also considered a "partial nuclear proliferation system" model.
The typology of international political systems developed by M. Kaplan became one of the foundations on which he derived various types of political behavior of states in the field of international relations.
Having identified for this purpose five types (models) of such behavior (related to the criteria of organizing the decision-making process, distribution of benefits from interaction, preferences when creating coalitions, the content and direction of political activity, as well as the ability to adapt to the conditions in which decisions need to be made), the author proceeded to a direct examination of each of them, trying to show how the behavior of a particular actor will change depending on its type and the type of international system.
Thus, unlike most researchers of his time, M. Kaplan is far from making references to history, considering historical data too poor for theoretical generalizations.
Based on general systems theory and systems analysis, he constructs abstract theoretical models designed to contribute to a better understanding of international reality.
Based on the conviction that the analysis of possible international systems involves studying the circumstances and conditions in which each of them can exist or transform into a system of another type, he asks questions about why this or that system develops, how it functions, how reasons it is declining. In this regard, M. Kaplan names five variables inherent in each system: the basic rules of the system, the rules of transformation of the system, the rules of classification of actors, their abilities and information. The main ones, according to the researcher, are the first three variables.
“Basic rules” define the relationships between actors, whose behavior depends not so much on the individual will and special goals of each, but on the nature of the system of which they are components.
“Transformation rules” express the laws of systems change. Thus, it is known that in the general theory of systems, the emphasis is on their homeostatic nature - the ability to adapt to changes in the environment, i.e. abilities for self-preservation. Moreover, each model (or each type) of a system has its own rules of adaptation and transformation. Finally, the “rules for classifying actors” include their structural characteristics, in particular the hierarchy that exists between them, which also influences their behavior.
According to M. Kaplan, the models he constructed in his work “System and Process in International Politics” set a theoretical framework within which apparently unrelated types of events can be brought into relationship with each other. From his point of view, any theory includes: a) a set of basic terms, definitions, axioms; b) formulation on their basis of provisions that will have an unambiguous empirical justification; c) the possibility of verification or falsification of these provisions using a controlled experiment or observation. At the same time, the researcher argued that for a preliminary, or initial, theory of international politics, the following are acceptable: firstly, certain mitigations of these requirements;
secondly, removing the condition for confirming the logical sequence; thirdly, the lack of a clear, unambiguous interpretation of the terms and methods of “laboratory” verification of provisions.
The question is whether M. Kaplan, even with these limitations, managed to come closer to realizing the modernist goal - the creation of a truly scientific theory of international relations that will completely supplant classical traditionalism.
In broad terms, it is quite obvious that M. Kaplan, like most of his other colleagues - representatives of the so-called scientific (scientist) movement, rather shares the main provisions of classical political realism. Thus, he proceeds from the principle of anarchy in international relations: “Since there is no judge who could keep this kind of dispute within any given boundaries, it cannot be said that this system fully has political status. In the modern international system, nation-states have political systems, but the international system itself does not have such status. The international system can be characterized as a zero-status system."
The researcher's closeness to realist positions was also evident in his interpretation of the main actors in international relations - M. Kaplan considers states to be such, and primarily the great powers. He is also convinced that the realist “doctrine based on the concept of “interest” is a fairly adequate description of the international system of “balance of power”, despite the fact that from time to time within this system “feelings” (or “passions”) prevailed over “interest.” Since the anarchic nature of international relations makes a clash of interests inevitable, they should be considered objective and considered primarily in terms of military security. From the point of view of M. Kaplan, “there is no direct inclination of national actors towards solidarity and cooperation, just as there is no transmitted inclination that would force them to put the needs of other national actors above their own.”
Of course, one cannot help but see that one of the main provisions on which M. Kaplan’s concept is based is the assertion of the fundamental role of the structure of the international system in the behavior of states. In this matter, the researcher not only joins canonical political realism, but also, to a certain extent, anticipates the theoretical constructs of neorealism. In addition, together with other modernists, he took another step forward compared to traditional realists, drawing attention to the relationship between foreign and domestic policies, which made it possible to enrich not only the factorial, but also the actor approach, including in the analysis, in addition to states, also substate and suprastate actors . And yet, in general, M. Kaplan’s theoretical constructions do not go far beyond the framework of the realist tradition.
The theory of system modeling directly proposed by him also raises questions. M. Kaplan argues that there is no difference between the physical sciences and the humanities when it comes to the need for empirical confirmation, and that, along with empirical research, a systems theory of international politics requires the use of models. So, for example, from his point of view, one can imagine a computer connected to an information bank system, which receives information from spies about the upcoming actions of the enemy, analyzes them taking into account the previous actions of this enemy and builds models of his future behavior, which makes it possible to make decisions about measures to prevent them. However, in the words of H. Bull, it is precisely the technique of constructing models that raises questions. Indeed, on the basis of what criteria did the author create such models, what is the measure of their rigor and logic, how do they relate to the main previously formulated types of behavior of international actors? M. Kaplan’s theory does not provide answers to such questions.
In his quest to create a universal and indisputable knowledge of international relations, which would be similar to the natural sciences, M. Kaplan pays special attention to the comparison of theoretical models with historical international systems. At the same time, he is forced to admit the imperfection of this method of theory construction. “If the theoretical model is stable, but the historical system is unstable, this means that the theory did not take into account some factor that has a certain impact. If both systems are stable, then there is a possibility that the reasons for this are different from those contained in the hypotheses. Possible answers to this question can be obtained either through a more in-depth study of particular systems, or through additional comparative studies that will allow us to determine the differences in certain cases. Identifying the forcing parameters would probably require an increase in the number of comparative studies." It is obvious, however, that such procedures do not provide confidence in the final result, both due to the lack of clarity regarding their required number, and because of the unproven likelihood of repetition of types of international behavior of political actors.
Modernists consider one of the important criteria for the scientific nature of knowledge to be its objectivity, which requires the scientist to impartial assessments and freedom from ideological judgments. Following this imperative, M. Kaplan even defines values on the basis of needs and the goals dictated by them, i.e. purely instrumental. However, this does not prevent him from expressing judgments of an exclusively ideological nature, which are not amenable to any of the scientific criteria. For example, he claims that the USSR “was forced to enter the war on the side of the West.”
Despite the small number of such provisions and the fact that they are by no means central from the point of view of the main problematics of the book and its tasks, such statements cannot but undermine confidence in the theoretical constructions of the author, who used ideological cliches of Western media that impose anti-Soviet (and today - anti-Russian) myths. For science, such judgments are of no interest (logicians call them “useless”). Their purpose is different - to mobilize public opinion, maintaining it in a state of constant readiness to approve some foreign policy guidelines and reject others. With their gross historical untruth, such statements once again confirm the illusory nature of the thesis about the possibility of an absolutely impartial, non-ideologized, free from any preferences and therefore strict and purely scientific theory of international relations.
M. Kaplan proceeds from the prescriptive function of theory, which is quite logical for a representative of the “scientific” movement, which postulates the limitless possibilities of empirically verifiable knowledge. In this regard, an important place in his book is given to strategy, understood by the author as “the study of restrictions that may be imposed on the rational choice of an opponent” or “the consideration of problems associated with predicting certain actions in given conditions.”
The main tool for solving strategic problems, says M. Kaplan, can be game theory, which allows one to analyze various options for rational choice when making decisions in situations of certainty, uncertainty and risk. The researcher is convinced that this theory “is a fairly accurate tool, which is based on very clearly expressed provisions. In the areas in which it is used, you can be sure of the absence of errors (from the standpoint of common sense). In addition, knowledge about game theory is also important for studying those problem areas where it has not yet been used. In these areas, in the absence of better analytical tools, game theory can be applied to clarify the provisions of common sense."
However, it was the theories of rational choice, which dominated the economics department of the University of Chicago in the 1970s and then invaded political science, as well as all social sciences, in order to make them truly scientific, that became a significant challenge to the conceptual views of M. Kaplan. According to K. Monroe, supporters of rational choice theories criticized behaviorism and the system theory of inputs and outputs, which, from their point of view, is of little use for understanding the psychological characteristics of the decision-making process. Behaviorism's position that outside observers can discern only behavior ceased to satisfy many, and cognitive scientists (led by G. Simon, a member of another Chicago school) joined economists in pushing rational choice methodology to the forefront of political research in the 1970s. Ultimately, the important philosophical difference between rational choice and behaviorism was often effectively ignored. Behaviorists and rational choice theorists united in opposing postmodern attacks on “science,” and the concepts of the second wave of the Chicago School became incorporated into ordinary common sense, in other words, dissolved in rational choice theory.
Thus, M. Kaplan’s conceptual constructions did not stand the test in two respects: they did not become a replacement (or at least one of the elements of replacement) of the “traditional” theory of international relations, and their “scientific character” turned out to be insufficient for the “rationality” of game theory supporters.
This does not mean, however, that the work of M. Kaplan left no traces, and that his work was completely forgotten. The merit of the scientist is that he was one of the first to raise the question of the laws of functioning, change and comparative advantages of international systems of various configurations. The content of these laws is debatable, although the subject of such discussions, as a rule, is the same and concerns the comparative advantages of bipolar and multipolar systems.
Thus, R. Aron believed that the bipolar system contains a tendency towards instability, since it is based on mutual fear and encourages both opposing sides to be harsh towards each other due to the opposition of their interests.
A similar opinion is expressed by M. Kaplan, arguing that the bipolar system is more dangerous, since it is characterized by the desire of counterparties for global expansion and implies a constant struggle between them either to maintain their positions or to redivide the world. Of course, a multipolar balance of power system contains certain risks (for example, the risk of nuclear proliferation, the outbreak of conflicts between small actors, or the unpredictability of the consequences that changes in blocs between great powers can lead to), but these do not compare with the dangers of a bipolar system.
Without limiting himself to such remarks, M.
Kaplan examines the “rules” of stability for bipolar and multipolar systems and identifies six rules that, if followed by each of the poles of a multipolar system, allow it to remain stable:
1) expand your capabilities, but better through negotiations than through war;
2) it is better to fight than to fail to expand your capabilities;
3) it is better to end the war than to destroy a great power, because there are optimal sizes of an interstate community (it is no coincidence that European dynastic regimes believed that their opposition to each other had natural limits);
4) resist any coalition or individual nation trying to take a dominant position in the system;
5) resist any attempts by one or another national state to “join supranational international organizational principles,” i.e. to the dissemination of the idea of the need to subordinate states to some higher authority;
6) treat all great powers as acceptable partners; allow a defeated country to enter the system as an acceptable partner, or replace it by strengthening another, previously weak state.
It seems that these rules were inductively derived from the foreign policies of the great powers (primarily the United States) and then (deductively) presented as general principles of their behavior in a multipolar system.
At the same time, it is obvious that the failure of the “winners” in the Cold War to comply with Rule 3 and especially Rule 6 (with the objective impossibility of fulfilling its third part), followed by persistent attempts to contain post-Soviet Russia on the path to great power, contributed to the chaos of the international system and a decrease in its security.
M. Kaplan also raised the question of the optimal number of poles of a multipolar balance of power system. Many believe that for such a system to be most stable, five great powers are needed. According to M. Kaplan, this is a minimum limit, and the level of safety increases when the number of poles exceeds a certain upper limit, which has not yet been identified. Of course, this issue has not found its theoretical solution (as, indeed, the problem of the comparative degree of safety of bi- and multipolar systems) and is unlikely to find it on the path of system modeling. However, its very formulation and discussion, initiated by the work of M. Kaplan, contribute to the development of the theory of international relations, since, on the one hand, they identify many other theoretical problems, and on the other hand, they warn against one-sided conclusions and decisions based on them.
Among the merits of M. Kaplan is the appeal to the sociological approach in the study of international relations.
Analysis in terms of interest groups, role functions, and cultural factors enabled him to go beyond the unilateral statist approach: he not only distinguished several types of national, supranational and subnational actors, but also identified signs of social intrusion, albeit within the framework of a hypothetical model of a hierarchical international system :
“...the rules of the hierarchical system are transferred mainly to functional actors such as trade unions, industrial organizations, police organizations and health organizations.” Turning to the sociological approach allowed the scientist, albeit contrary to the general logic of rational choice, to note that “national actors can behave as irrationally and inconsistently as people”
However, the main merit of M. Kaplan is that thanks to his work “System and Process in International Politics”
he became one of the first scientists to draw attention to the importance, fruitfulness and need for a systematic approach in this area of research.
Indeed, despite the fact that the understanding of the importance of this approach in the social sciences dates back to Antiquity, it only relatively recently became widespread in them, and in the theory of international relations it gained relevance thanks to an attempt to make it the basis for the study and forecasting of political interactions of states, which was first tested by M. Kaplan. He made a significant contribution to the consideration of international reality as a certain integrity, functioning according to its own, albeit not always clear and unchanging, laws, and not simply as a certain set of interacting elements that can be studied in isolation. At the same time, one of the main ideas of M. Kaplan’s concept is to postulate the fundamental role that its structure plays in understanding the patterns and determinants of the international system. This idea is shared by the vast majority of researchers: J. Modelski and O. Young, M. Haas and S. Hoffmann, K. Walz and R. Aron built their theories on its basis...; the founders of the English school [see: 11], constructivism and neo-Marxism in the theory of international relations relied on it. In domestic science, the use of a systematic approach in this area of research has yielded fruitful results in the works of A.D. Bogaturova, N.A. Kosolapova, M.A. Khrustalev and many others.
The indicated advantages of M. Kaplan’s work are not canceled by the subsequently identified limits and risks associated with the use of system analysis [see, for example: 8; 27]. The risks stem from the fact that, firstly, no system that has reached a certain level of complexity can be fully understood: as soon as the researcher goes beyond the boundaries of relatively simple systems, the grounds for considering his conclusions correct are significantly reduced. Secondly, not every reality can be “squeezed” into the conceptual boundaries of the systems approach without the threat of distortion of its inherent characteristics. Third, there may be a temptation to replace research analytics with simplistic holism. Fourthly, systems analysis can overshadow alternative approaches, because often a superficial comparison of different objects creates the impression that their common features make them similar, while researchers forget that the objects being studied also have differences that may turn out to be much more significant. Fifthly, the systems approach is quite conservative, which is associated with a superficial analogy between mechanical and organic systems, on the one hand, and social systems, on the other. Thus, questions of balance, stability and survival of the system are the fruits of the transfer of models from one sphere to another on the basis of superficial analogies, without the necessary consideration of the characteristics of social (in this case international) systems. Finally, sixthly, questions of a philosophical, even ethical nature arise related to the influence of systemic analysis on political behavior. The risk is that system theory, identifying the mechanisms of functioning, factors of balance, harmony and disharmony of social systems, can lead to political action, the norms of which are determined by a certain model. This is a question of reducing the study of international relations to “sociotechnical” procedures. However, the political practice of international relations cannot be reduced to the simple application of scientific data. The technical and organizational rationality of system models, as J. Habermas noted, does not exhaust the rationality of political action [see. about this: 27]. And this despite the fact that political action, like human behavior in general, is not always characterized by rationality.
It is worth noting that M. Kaplan himself saw the limits and pitfalls of the systems approach. Thus, he emphasized that, firstly, “...methods for the mathematical study of the complex problem of interactions in a system have not yet been developed. For example, a physicist may make accurate predictions about a system with two participants, rough predictions about a system with three participants, and only partial predictions about a system with more participants. A scientist cannot predict the path of one gas molecule in an entire tank filled with gas.
Secondly, the predictions that a physical scientist makes are only applicable to an isolated system. The scientist does not make a prediction about the amount of gas in the tank, about the constant temperature in the tank, or about the fact that it will always be located at the site of the experiment. It predicts what the characteristic behavior of most gas molecules will be under constant conditions of temperature, pressure, etc.” . In this regard, M. Kaplan believed that those who develop models do not consider them applicable at all. They are applicable only within a specific social context, which must first be clarified. It is of the utmost importance to determine whether this context actually exists.
M. Kaplan also warned: “Game theory has not resolved the most important problems of strategy, especially those that arise in the field of international politics. …Game theory analysis is not an accurate tool for addressing these issues. This kind of analysis also cannot serve as a replacement for other political and sociological theories." “However, if game theory is currently not a sufficient tool of analysis, then it at least narrows the scope within which rational decision-making can occur, and also shows the factors influencing strategic games.” Ultimately, M. Kaplan wrote: “The degree of confidence that we attach to our research will never approach that which a physicist has in relation to the study of mechanics. ... At the same time, without theoretical models, we are unable to operate even with the differences that are available to us, and to study these issues with the same degree of depth.”
It is no coincidence that even such an opponent of the “scientific” approach as H. Bull not only did not deny, but also actively used the concept of “international system” in his research, believing that its main attributes are, “firstly, the existence of many sovereign states; secondly, the level of interaction between them in the sense in which they form the system;
thirdly, the degree to which general rules and institutions are accepted in the sense in which they shape society." It is no coincidence that the three most common approaches to the study of international relations today - from the positions of the international system, international society and world society - do not exclude, but mutually presuppose each other. As K. Boulding emphasized, the study of international systems undertaken by M. Kaplan is extremely important, not so much from the point of view of the results he achieved, but from the position of the methodological path that it opens in the analysis of international relations.
This is explained primarily by the heuristic potential that the systems approach has, facilitating the task of finding conditions of equilibrium and stability, mechanisms of regulation and transformation of international systems. In this regard, the work of Morton Kaplan can still serve as a significant aid in the analysis of international politics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bogaturov A.D., Kosolapov N.A., Khrustalev M.A. Essays on the theory and political analysis of international relations. M.: Scientific and educational forum on international relations, 2002.
2. Wallerstein I. Analysis of world systems and the situation in the modern world. St. Petersburg: University Book, 2001.
3. Theory of international relations: Reader. M.: Gardariki, 2002.
4. Almond G.A. Who Lost the Chicago School of Political Science? // Perspectives Forum on the Chicago School of Political Science. March 2004. Vol. 2.
No. 1. P. 91-93.
5. Aron R. Paix et guerre entre les nations. P.: Calmann-Lvy, 1964.
6. Berton P. International Subsystems - A Submacro Approach to International Studies // International Studies Quarterly. 1969. Vol. 13. No. 4. Special Issue on International Subsystems. P. 329-334.
7. Boulding K. Theoretical Systems and Political Reality: A Review of Morton A. Kaplan System and Process in International Politics // Journal of Conflicts Resolution. 1958. Vol. 2. P. 329-334.
8. Braillard Ph. Thorie des systmes et relations internationales. Bruxelles:
9. Bull H. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. N.Y.:
Columbia University Press, 1977.
10. Bull H. International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach // Contending Approaches to International Politics / Ed. by K. Knorr and J.N. Rosenau.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. pp. 20-38.
11. Buzan B. From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School // International Organization. 1993. Vol. 47. No. 3. P. 327-352.
12. Deutsch K., Singer D. Multipolar Power Systems and International Stability // World Politics. 1964. Vol. 16. No. 3. R. 390-406.
13. Finnemore M. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.
14. Goodman J.S. The Concept of “System” in International Relations Theory // Background. 1965. Vol. 89. No. 4. P. 257-268.
15. Haas M. National Subsystems: Stability and Polarity // The American Political Science Review. 1970. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 98-123.
16. Hanrieder W. Actor Objectives and International Systems // Journal of Politics. 1965. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 109-132.
17. Hanrieder W. The International System: Bipolar or Multibloc // Journal of Conflicts Resolutions. 1965. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 299-308.
18. Hoffmann S.H. International Relations. The Long Road to Theory // World Politics. 1959. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 346-377.
19. Hoffmann S.H. Thorie et relations internationales // Revue franaise de science politique. 1961. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 26-27.
20. The International System. Theoretical Essays/Ed. by K. Knorr, S. Verba.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.
21. Kaplan M.A. Balance of Power, Bipolarity and Other Models of International Systems // The American Political Science Review. 1957. Vol. 51. No. 3.
22. Kaplan M.A. A New Great Debate: Traditionalism versus Science in International Relations // World Politics. 1966. Vol. 19. P. 1-20.
23. Kaplan M.A. System and Process in International Politics. N.Y.: Wiley, 1957.
24. Kaplan M.A. Variants on Six Models of the International System // International Politics and Foreign Policy. A Reader in Research and Theory / Ed.
by J. Rosenau. N.Y.: The Free Press, 1969. P. 291-303.
25. Kaplan M.A., Burns A.L., Quandt R.E. Theoretical Analysis of the Balance of Power // Behavioral Science. 1960. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 240-252.
26. Kaplan M.A., Katzenbach N. De B. The Patterns of International Politics and of International Law // The American Political Science Review. 1959. Vol.
53. No. 3. P. 693-712.
27. Meszaros T. Quelques reflexions sur l’ide du systme en sciences politiques // Encyclopdie de L’Agora. URL: http://agora.
qc.ca/cosmopolis.nsf/Articles/no2007_2_Quelques_reflexions_sur_lidee_de_ systeme_en_scien?OpenDocument (visit: 02/15/2012).
28. Modelski G. Evolutionary Paradigm for Global Politics // International Studies Quarterly. 1996. Vol. 40. No. 3. P. 321-342.
29. Monroe K.R. The Chicago School: Forgotten but Not Gone // Perspectives Forum on the Chicago School of Political Science. March 2004. Vol. 2.
No. 1. P. 95-98.
30. Nettl P. The Concept of System in Political Science // Political Studies.
1966. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 305-338.
31. Onuf N. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.
32. Rosecrance R. Action and Reaction in World Politics. Boston: Little Brown, 1963.
33. Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub, 1979.
34. Wendt A. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
35. Young O. Systems of Political Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
"SCIENCE" MOSCOW -1968 CONTENTS B. A. Uspensky (Moscow). Relations of subsystems in language and related... "VARIANTS OF MENTAL DISORDERS..." ST. PETERSBURG PSYCHOLOGICAL SCHOOL anthropology is the main feature of the St. Petersburg psychological school, founded by V. M. Bekhterev and B. G. Ananyev. According to modern anthropological..."energetics named after. L.A. Melentyev Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk, Russia [email protected], [email protected] Abstract B with...”
2017 www.site - “Free electronic library - various documents”
The materials on this site are posted for informational purposes only, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.
M.: Gardariki, 2002. – 400 p.
Reviewers:
head Department of World Political Processes at MGIMO
Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor M. M. Lebedeva,
head Department of Political Theories at MGIMO
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor T. A. Alekseeva
Theory of international relations: Reader / Comp., scientific. ed. and comment. P.A. Tsygankova. – M.: Gardariki, 2002. – 400 p.
Beginning of the 21st century extremely acutely indicates that world politics and international relations are undergoing dramatic changes. At the same time, new international realities do not arise out of nowhere; moreover, they often coexist with events and phenomena, analogues of which have been known to science since the time of Thucydides. Therefore, a general theoretical picture of international relations can only be obtained taking into account the entire body of accumulated knowledge, when, along with new ones, established approaches, theories and views continue to retain their significance.
Fragments of works by Anglo-Saxon authors (1939–1972), which have become a kind of classics of international political science, are presented. Each of them is accompanied by brief comments from the scientific editor. All this makes the book a useful addition to a textbook on the theory of international relations.
For undergraduates, graduate students and teachers of faculties, departments and departments of international relations. It will be useful for those studying social sciences.
© "Gardariki", 2002
© Tsygankov P.A. Compilation, comments, 2002
Preface (MM. Lebedeva )
Introductory article. Theory of international relations: traditions and modernity ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Section I. Traditions and paradigms
Edward Harlett Carr and International Political Science ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Carr E.X. Twenty years of crisis: 1919–1939. Introduction to the Study of International Relations
The theory of political realism: power and force in interstate relations ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Morgenthau G. Political relations between nations: the struggle for power and peace
Kenneth Waltz and neorealism in the science of international relations ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Walz K.N. Man, state and war: theoretical analysis
Political idealism in the theory of international relations: illusions and reality ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Clark G., Sohn L.B. Achieving universal peace through global law. Two alternative plans
Johan Galtung: neo-Marxism and the sociology of international relations ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Galtung J. Small Group Theory and International Relations Theory (a study of the correspondence problem)
Transnationalism in International Relations Scholarship: The Contributions of Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Robert O. Cohen ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Nye J.S. Jr., Cohen R.O. (ed.). Transnational relations and world politics
Section II. Theories and methods
The relationship between domestic and foreign policy: the ideas of James Rosenau and modernity ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Rosenau J. Toward the study of the intersection of domestic political and international systems
Hedley Bull and the second "great controversy" in the science of international relations ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Bull H. International Relations Theory: An Example of the Classical Approach
Can the science of international relations become “applied”? (Anatol Rapoport on the need to give a scientific character to peace research) (P.A. Tsygankov)
Rapoport A. Can peace research be applied?
Morton Kaplan: Contributions to the Systematic Study of International Relations ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Kaplan M. System and process in international politics
International society from the perspective of a systems approach: Oran R. Young on “gaps” in international systems ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Young O.R. Political breaks in the international system
Thomas Schelling and the application of game theory in the study of conflict and cooperation ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Schelling T. Conflict strategy
Graham Allison on national security decision-making models ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Allison G.T. Conceptual models and the Cuban Missile Crisis
Section III. Problems and solutions
Ole Holsti on making foreign policy decisions in crisis situations ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Holsti O.R. Crises, escalation, war
Ernst B. Haas on functional cooperation as a condition for overcoming conflict and achieving political integration ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Haas E.B. Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization
International cooperation: positions of political realism ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Wolfers A. Confrontation and Cooperation: An Essay on International Politics
John W. Burton on Conflict and Cooperation in World Society ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Burton J.W. Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations
Moral and legal possibilities for regulating order in international society ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Schwartzenberger J. Political Power: Exploring Global Community
Quincy Wright on International Organizations, Democracy and War ( P.A. Tsygankov)
Wright K. Some Thoughts on War and Peace
Lebedeva M.M.
Preface
The publication of the presented book is of great importance for domestic international political science, which is difficult to overestimate. The book, through the texts of Anglo-Saxon authors, gives an idea to the domestic reader, primarily the student, about the formation and development of the theory of international relations in the world.
International relations as a scientific and educational discipline have their own domestic traditions of development. They formed later than in the West and have a number of features. During the Soviet period, they actually developed under the same methodological paradigm associated with Marxism, which undoubtedly left its mark on the research and teaching of international relations in the country. Many works published abroad, as well as discussions on the main problems of international relations, and the methodology for their research remained outside the field of view of domestic scientists. At best, they fell under the heading “Criticism of Foreign Approaches” and became known to domestic researchers and students only in retellings 1 . The very works of foreign authors, primarily English and American researchers, who for a number of reasons made perhaps the greatest contribution to the development of international research, were not available in Russian. Moreover, those who read English found it difficult to find the necessary book even in the central libraries of Moscow. However, this state of affairs was typical for all social sciences.
Developing largely in isolation from world science, international research was, to a greater extent than in the West, focused on historical rather than political science knowledge. Later, in addition to history, studies of international relations began to include economic, legal and other aspects. Much has been done to form such a multidisciplinary view of international relations by scientists from the institutes of the Academy of Sciences and universities (primarily MGIMO, Moscow State University). A significant impetus in the development of research on international relations in the country was a discussion that unfolded in 1969 on the pages of the journal "World Economy and International Relations", when special attention was paid to issues of theory and methodology. Nevertheless, international relations in Russian science for quite a long time were considered rather “totally”, as connections of various kinds, primarily interstate relations. This is reflected in the definitions of the concept itself. For example, the “Diplomatic Dictionary”, published in 1986, defines international relations as a set of “economic, political, legal, diplomatic, military and other connections and relationships between states and systems of states, between the main classes, economic, political forces, organizations and movements operating in the international arena" 2 . In principle, this approach was typical for research on international relations in other countries. However, there, firstly, there was a strong influence of political science, which was virtually absent in the Soviet Union, and secondly, interdisciplinarity, rather than multidisciplinarity, was felt to a greater extent. In our country, due to established traditions, when academic science was built according to subject areas (hence the names of the institutes of the Academy of Sciences, for example, the Institute of Sociology, the Institute of General History, etc.), and not according to the problem principle, it was quite difficult to achieve true interdisciplinarity. Even in cases where an academic institute had an interdisciplinary name (for example, the Institute of World Economy and International Relations), its internal structure was still based on the subject principle.
The lack of interdisciplinarity, a political science perspective on the problem, and insufficient familiarity with the work carried out in Western countries negatively affected the development of domestic research on the theory of international relations. This was reinforced by the pronounced regional studies orientation of Russian works. In addition, the trends and patterns of world development were not considered or were replaced by ideological constructs.
If during the Soviet period, research and teaching of international relations was concentrated in Moscow - in the research institutes of the Academy of Sciences (the Institute of the USA and Canada, the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, the Institute of Oriental Studies), the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the Diplomatic Academy, the Moscow State university, then in the 1990s. in connection with the processes of democratization and the active entry of Russian regions, corporations, non-governmental organizations, etc. onto the world stage. The need for qualified personnel in the field of international relations has sharply increased, not only in the center, but also in the regions. In response to this request, many regional state universities (more than 20, and taking into account the related discipline of regional studies - more than 30) began training specialists in international relations, opening corresponding faculties and departments. There are even more open non-state universities where international relations are taught. In addition, this discipline is included in the curricula and in the training of related specialists - political scientists, sociologists, historians, etc.
The rapid development of international relations was accompanied by the development of interdisciplinarity, the translation of foreign literature on international relations, and the emergence of domestic research, including on theoretical issues 3 . At the same time, the rapid development of a new educational and scientific discipline is accompanied by problems and difficulties. Thus, especially in Russian regions, there is clearly a shortage of highly qualified teachers and good educational and scientific literature.
International relations theory occupies a special place in the research and teaching of international relations. The theoretical basis is the basis on which specific political events in the field of international relations are understood. Without it, neither training nor the work of practitioners is possible. German psychologist Kurt Lewin once remarked that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. Therefore, it is no coincidence that theoretical issues are given so much attention in practical institutions, including the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In the field of theoretical understanding of international relations, the existing gap that has arisen in domestic science and education due to the reasons stated above is largely filled by the book offered to the reader. The structure of the book seems quite successful. The first section presents classic works on the main theoretical schools in international studies - realism (E.H. Carr, G. Morgenthau), neorealism (L. Waltz), idealism (G. Clark), transnationalism (J.S. Nye, R. Cohen). The second section is devoted to methods of research in international relations, where we also find classic studies by J. Rosenau, H. Bull, A. Rapoport, O. Young and T. Schelling. Finally, the third section examines the problems of interaction in the international arena, which is reflected in cooperation and conflict, as well as decision making. This section contains the works of J. Burton, O. Holsti, E. Haas, J. Schwartzenberger, A. Wolfers, K. Wright.
The book is structured in such a way that each article contains comments from the author. This makes it possible, on the one hand, to understand the place of this article in the context of other studies by this author, on the other hand, it allows those who are not sufficiently familiar with the theory of international relations to use the book.
Undoubtedly, the proposed publication is necessary for those who study international relations, but it will also be useful for political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, historians and other specialists. Practitioners will also be able to find here answers to questions that concern them today, in particular, how applied theoretical knowledge can be.
Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor,
head Department of World Political Processes
MGIMO (u) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
MM. Lebedeva
M.: 2003 - 590 p.
The most established provisions and conclusions of world international political science are generalized and systematized; its basic concepts and the most famous theoretical directions are given; gives an idea of the current state of this discipline in our country and abroad. Particular attention is paid to the globalization of world development, changes in the nature of threats to international security, and the characteristics of the new generation of conflicts. For students of higher educational institutions studying in the areas and specialties of International Relations, Regional Studies, Public Relations, Sociology, Political Science, as well as undergraduates, graduate students and university teachers.
Format: pdf
Size: 5.8 MB
Watch, download:drive.google
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 9
Chapter 1. Object and subject of international political science 19
1. Concept and criteria of international relations 20.
2. World politics 27
3. The relationship between domestic and foreign policy 30
4. Subject of international political science 37
Literature 44
Chapter 2. The problem of method in the theory of international relations 46
1. Significance of Method Problem 46
2. Methods of situation analysis 50
Observation 51
Studying documents 51
Comparison 52
3. Explicative methods 54
Content analysis 54
Event Upgrade 54
Cognitive mapping 55
Experiment 57
4 Prognostic methods 58
Delphi method 59
Building scenarios 59
Systematic approach.60
5. Analysis of the decision-making process 70
Literature 75
Chapter 3. The problem of patterns of international relations 77
1; On the nature of laws in the field of international relations 78
2. The content of the laws of international relations 82.
3. Universal patterns of international relations 89
Literature 94
Chapter 4. Traditions, paradigms and disputes in TMO 95
1. Traditions: international relations in the history of socio-political thought 97
2. “Canonical” paradigms: basic provisions 105
Liberal-idealistic paradigm 106
Political realism 109
Marxist-Leninist paradigm 113
3. “Great debates”: the place of political realism 117
Literature 122
Chapter 5. Modern schools and directions in the theory of international relations 125
1. The dispute between neorealism and neoliberalism 126
Neorealism 126
Neoliberalism 132
The main provisions of the dispute between neorealism and neoliberalism 136
2. International political economy and neo-Marxism 140
International Political Economy 140
Neo-Marxism 149
3. Sociology of international relations 155.
Literature 163
Chapter 6. International system 167
1. Basic concepts of system theory 168
2. Features and main directions of the systematic approach in the analysis of international relations 173
3. Types and structures of international systems 178
4. Laws of functioning and transformation of international systems 184
Literature 192
Chapter 7. Environment of the system of international relations 193
1. Features of the environment of international relations 194
2. Social environment. Features of the modern stage of world civilization 196
3. Biosocial environment. The role of geopolitics in the science of international relations 201
4. Globalization of the international environment 212
The concept of globalization in comparison with other concepts that are similar in meaning 214
The question of the historical uniqueness of globalization 217
Main components of globalization 219
Debate over the consequences of globalization 221
Literature 225
Chapter 8. Participants in international relations 228
1. The essence and role of the state as a participant in international relations 231
2. Non-state participants in international relations 238
Main features and typology of IPO 239
General characteristics and types of INGOs 242
3. The paradox of participation 248
Literature 252
Chapter 9. Goals, means and strategies of participants in international relations 254
1. On the content of the concepts of “goals” and “means” 254
2. Strategy as a unity of goals and means 267
General understanding of strategy 267
Big strategy.; 270
Crisis management strategies 271
Peace Strategies 272
Strategy and Diplomacy 275
3. Force and violence as part of goals and means 277
Literature 286
Chapter 10. National interests: concept, structure, methodological and political role 288
1. Discussions about the legality of use and the content of the concept of “national interest” 288
2. Criteria and structure of national interest 298
On the unconscious element in the structure of national interest 304
3. Globalization and national interest 307
Literature 317
Chapter 11. International security 320
1. The content of the concept of “security” and the main theoretical approaches to its study 320
2. Changing security environment and new global threats 331
3. New safety concepts 338
Cooperative Security Concept 339
Human Security Concept 343
Democratic Peace Theory 344
Literature 347
Chapter 12. The problem of legal regulation of international relations 349
1. Historical forms and features of the regulatory role of international law 350
2. Features of modern international law and its basic principles 353
Basic principles of international law 358
3. Human rights law and international humanitarian law 360
Right character of a person 360
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) 364
Concept of humanitarian intervention 367
4. Interaction of law and morality in international relations 372
Literature 376
Chapter 13. The ethical dimension of international relations 378
1. Morality and law in international relations: general and specific 379
2. Variety of interpretations of international morality 382
Confessional and cultural representations 383
Conflict of theoretical schools 385
Holism, individualism, deontology 390
3. Basic imperatives of international morality in the light of globalization 395
The main requirements of international morality 395
Globalization and new normativism 398
On the effectiveness of moral norms in international relations 401
Literature 404
Chapter 14. Conflicts in international relations 406
1. The concept of conflict. Features of international conflicts during the Cold War era 407
Concept, types and functions of conflict 407
Conflicts and crises 410
Features and functions of conflict in a bipolar world 412
Conflict resolution: traditional methods
and institutional procedures 413
2. Main directions in the study of international conflicts 417
Strategic Studies 417
Conflict Studies 420
World Studies 423
3. Features of “new generation conflicts” 426
General context 426
Reasons, participants, content 428
Settlement mechanisms 431
Literature 438
Chapter 15. International cooperation 440
1. Concept and types of international cooperation 440
2. Interstate cooperation from the standpoint of political realism 443
3. Theory of international regimes 447
4. Sociological approach to the analysis of international cooperation 450
5. Cooperation and integration processes 457
Literature 468
Chapter 16. Social foundations of international order 470
1. The concept of international order and its historical types 470
The concept of “international order” 470
Historical types of international order 475
Post-war international order 479
2. Political science and sociological approaches to the problem of international order 484
3. Foreign and domestic scientists on the prospects of a new world order 492
Literature 504
Instead of conclusion 507
Appendix 1. Some international principles, doctrines, theories. International organizations, treaties and agreements 510
Appendix 2. Internet resources devoted to research in the field of international relations (A.B. Tsrugitt) | 538
Name index 581
Subject index 587
International relations have long occupied an important place in the life of any state, society and individual. The origin of nations, the formation of interstate borders, the formation and change of political regimes, the formation of various social institutions, the enrichment of cultures, the development of art, science, technological progress and an effective economy are closely related to trade, financial, cultural and other exchanges, interstate alliances, diplomatic contacts and military conflicts - or, in other words, with international relations. Their importance increases even more today, when all countries are woven into a dense, extensive network of diverse interactions that influence the volume and nature of production, the types of goods created and their prices, consumption standards, and the values and ideals of people.
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the world socialist system, the entry of the former Soviet republics into the international arena as independent states, the new Russia’s search for its place in the world, the determination of its foreign policy priorities, the reformulation of national interests - all these and many other circumstances of international life have a direct impact on the daily existence of people and the fate of Russians, on the present and future of our country, its immediate environment and, in a certain sense, on the fate of humanity as a whole. “In the light of the above, it becomes clear that today there is a sharp increase in the objective need for a theoretical understanding of international relations, for an analysis of the changes taking place here and their consequences, and, not least of all, for the expansion and deepening of relevant topics in the general humanitarian training of students.
The textbook deals with international events of our day, indicating the transition of humanity to a new world order. Global transformations and upheavals occurring in all spheres of public life are raising new questions of international politics. The authors of the textbook are convinced that today it is no longer enough to consider it as the interaction of states, interstate alliances and the clash of interests of great powers. The unhindered expansion of information and migration flows covering the world, the diversification of trade, sociocultural and other exchanges, and the massive invasion of non-state actors are inevitably changing our views on international relations. But do these changes mean that international relations are giving way to world politics? The change in the role of the state and the structure of national sovereignty in no way indicates their disappearance, therefore world politics should be considered in unity with international relations.
Step 1. Select books from the catalog and click the “Buy” button;
Step 2. Go to the “Cart” section;
Step 3. Specify the required quantity, fill in the data in the Recipient and Delivery blocks;
Step 4. Click the “Proceed to Payment” button.
At the moment, it is possible to purchase printed books, electronic access or books as a gift to the library on the ELS website only with 100% advance payment. After payment, you will be given access to the full text of the textbook within the Electronic Library or we will begin preparing an order for you at the printing house.
Attention! Please do not change your payment method for orders. If you have already chosen a payment method and failed to complete the payment, you must re-place your order and pay for it using another convenient method.
You can pay for your order using one of the following methods:
- Cashless method:
- Bank card: you must fill out all fields of the form. Some banks ask you to confirm the payment - for this, an SMS code will be sent to your phone number.
- Online banking: banks cooperating with the payment service will offer their own form to fill out.
Please enter the data correctly in all fields. For example, for" class="text-primary">Sberbank Online Mobile phone number and email are required. For - Electronic wallet: if you have a Yandex wallet or Qiwi Wallet, you can pay for your order through them. To do this, select the appropriate payment method and fill out the fields provided, then the system will redirect you to a page to confirm the invoice.
Loading...
