Tsygankov theory of international relations pdf. Theory of international relations. Domestic studies of international relations

26.03.2020

The diversity mentioned above has greatly complicated the problem of classifying modern theories of international relations, which in itself becomes a problem of scientific research.

There are many classifications of modern trends in the science of international relations, which is explained by differences in the criteria used by various authors.

So, some of them proceed from geographical criteria, highlighting Anglo-Saxon concepts, Soviet and Chinese understanding international relations, as well as the approach to their study by authors representing the "third world" (8).

Others build their typology on the basis of the degree of generality of the theories under consideration, distinguishing, for example, global explicative theories (such as political realism and the philosophy of history) and particular hypotheses and methods (which include the behaviorist school) (9). Within the framework of such a typology, the Swiss author Philippe Briar classifies political realism, historical sociology, and the Marxist-Leninist concept of international relations as general theories. As for private theories, among them are: the theory of international actors (Bagat Korani); the theory of interactions within international systems (George Modelski, Samir Amin; Karl Kaiser); theories of strategy, conflict and peace studies (Lucien Poirier, David Singer, Johan Galtwig); integration theory (Amitai Etzioni; Carl Deutsch); theory of international organization (Inis Claude; Jean Siotis; Ernst Haas) (10).

Still others believe that the main dividing line is the method used by certain researchers, and, from this point of view, they focus on the controversy between representatives of the traditional and "scientific" approaches to the analysis of international relations (11,12).

The fourth are based on highlighting the central problems characteristic of a particular theory, highlighting the main and turning points in the development of science (13).

Finally, the fifth are based on complex criteria. Thus, the Canadian scientist Bagat Korani builds a typology of theories of international relations based on the methods they use (“classical” and “modernist”) and the conceptual vision of the world (“liberal-pluralistic” and “materialist”).

chesko-structuralist"). As a result, he identifies such areas as political realism (G. Morgenthau; R. Aron; X. Ball), behaviorism (D. Singer; M. Kaplan), classical Marxism (K. Marx; F. Engels; V.I. Lenin ) and neo-Marxism (or the “dependence” school: I. Wallerstein; S. Amin; A. Frank; F. Cardozo) (14). Similarly, Daniel Kolyar draws attention to the classical theory of the "state of nature" (ie, political realism); theories " international community(or political idealism); Marxist ideological trend and its numerous interpretations; doctrinal Anglo-Saxon current, as well as the French school of international relations (15). Marcel Merle believes that the main directions in modern science about international relations are presented by traditionalists - the heirs of the classical school (Hans Morgenthau; Stanley Hoffmann; Henry Kissinger); Anglo-Saxon sociological concepts of behaviorism and functionalism (Robert Cox; David Singer;

Morton Kaplan; David Easton); Marxist and neo-Marxist (Paul Baran; Paul Sweezy; Samir Amin) currents (16).

Examples of various classifications of modern theories of international relations could be continued. It is important, however, to note at least three significant circumstances. First, any of these classifications is conditional and cannot exhaust the diversity of theoretical views and methodological approaches to the analysis of international relations1. Secondly, this diversity does not mean that modern theories have managed to overcome their "kinship" with the three main paradigms discussed above. Finally, thirdly, contrary to the opposite opinion still encountered today, there is every reason to talk about the emerging synthesis, mutual enrichment, mutual “compromise” between previously irreconcilable directions.

Based on the foregoing, we confine ourselves to a brief consideration of such trends (and their varieties) as political idealism, political realism, modernism, transnationalism and neo-Marxism.

However, they do not set themselves such a goal. Their goal is to comprehend the state and theoretical level achieved by the science of international relations by summarizing the available conceptual approaches and comparing them with what was done earlier.

The legacy of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, de Watgel and Clausewitz, on the one hand, and Vitoria, Greece, Kant, on the other hand, found its direct reflection in that major scientific discussion that arose in the United States between the two world wars, discussions between realists and idealists. |Idealism in the modern science of international relations also has closer ideological and theoretical sources, which are utopian socialism, liberalism and pacifism of the 19th century. Its main premise is the belief in the need and possibility to end world wars and armed conflicts between states through the legal regulation and democratization of international relations, the spread of the norms of morality and justice to them.According to this direction, the world community of democratic states, with the support and pressure from public opinion, is quite capable of resolving conflicts that arise between its members peacefully, using legal methods. regulation, increasing the number and role of international organizations that contribute to the expansion of mutually beneficial cooperation and exchange.One of its priority topics is the creation of a collective security system based on voluntary disarmament and mutual renunciation of war as an instrument international politics. In political practice, idealism found its embodiment in the program for the creation of the League of Nations developed after the First World War by American President Woodrow Wilson (17), in the Briand-Kellogg Pact (1928), which provides for the rejection of the use of force in interstate relations, as well as in the Stymson Doctrine. (1932), according to which the United States refuses diplomatic recognition of any change if it is achieved by force. In the postwar years, the idealistic tradition found a certain embodiment in the activities of such American politicians as Secretary of State John F. Dulles and Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski (representing, however, not only the political, but also the academic elite of his country), President Jimmy Carter (1976-1980) and President George W. Bush (1988-1992). In the scientific literature, it was represented, in particular, by the book of such American authors as R. Clark and L.B. Dream "Achieving peace through world law." The book proposes a step-by-step project

"Sometimes this trend is qualified as utopianism (see, for example: Carr. N. The Twenty Years of Crisis, 1919-1939. London. 1956.

th disarmament and creation of a system of collective security for the whole world for the period 1960-1980. The main instrument for overcoming wars and achieving eternal peace among peoples should be a world government led by the UN and acting on the basis of a detailed world constitution (18). Similar ideas are expressed in a number of works by European authors (19). The idea of a world government was also expressed in papal encyclicals: John XXIII - "Pacem in terns" or 04/16/63, Paul VI - "Populorum progressio" dated 03/26/67, and John Paul II - dated 12/2/80, who still speaks today for the creation of "a political power endowed with universal competence".

Thus, the idealistic paradigm that accompanied the history of international relations for centuries retains a certain influence on the minds of our day. Moreover, it can be said that in recent years its influence on some aspects of theoretical analysis and forecasting in the field of international relations has even increased, becoming the basis for practical steps taken by the world community to democratize and humanize these relations, as well as attempts to form a new, consciously regulated world order that meets the common interests of all mankind.

At the same time, it should be noted that idealism for a long time (and in some respects to this day1) was considered to have lost all influence and, in any case, hopelessly lagged behind the requirements of modernity. Indeed, the normative approach underlying it turned out to be deeply undermined due to the growing tension in Europe in the 1930s, the aggressive policy of fascism and the collapse of the League of Nations, and the unleashing of the world conflict of 1939-1945. and the Cold War in subsequent years. The result was a revival on American soil of the European classical tradition, with its inherent prominence in the analysis of international relations of such concepts as "power" and "balance of power", "national interest" and "conflict".

Political realism not only subjected idealism to crushing criticism - pointing out, in particular, the fact that the idealistic illusions of statesmen of that time

In the majority of textbooks on international relations published in the West, idealism is either not considered as an independent theoretical trend or serves as nothing more than a "critical background" in the analysis of political realism and other theoretical trends.

They contributed to the unleashing of the Second World War to a large extent, but also proposed a fairly coherent theory. Its most famous representatives - Reinhold Niebuhr, Frederick Schumann, George Kennan, George Schwarzenberger, Kenneth Thompson, Henry Kissinger, Edward Carr, Arnold Walfers and others - determined the path of the science of international relations for a long time. Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron became the undisputed leaders in this direction.

1 The work of G. Morgenthau “Political relations between nations] Mi. The Struggle for Power”, the first edition of which was published in |48, has become a kind of “bible” for many generations (of political scientists both in the USA and in other countries "" JSffaaa. From the point of view of G. Morgenthau, international relations are an arena of sharp confrontation between states.At the core of all international activity of the latter lies their desire to increase their power, or strength (power) and reduce the power of others.The term "power" is understood in the broadest sense: as a military and the economic power of the state, the guarantee of its greatest security and prosperity, fame and prestige, the opportunity to spread its ideological attitudes and spiritual values The two main ways in which the state secures its power, and at the same time two complementary aspects of its foreign policy are military strategy and diplomacy The first of them is interpreted in the spirit of Clausewitz: as a continuation of politics by violent means. ive, there is a peaceful struggle for power. In the modern era, says G. Morgenthau, states express their need for power in terms of "national interest". The result of the desire of each of the states to maximize the satisfaction of their national interests is the establishment on the world stage of a certain balance (balance) of power (strength), which is the only realistic way to ensure and maintain peace. Actually, the state of peace is the state of balance of power between states.

According to Morgenthau, there are two factors that can keep the aspirations of states to power within some limits - these are international law and morality. However, relying too much on them in an effort to ensure peace between states would mean falling into the unforgivable illusions of the idealist school. The problem of war and peace has no chance of being solved by means of collective security mechanisms or

means of the UN. Projects of harmonization of national interests through the creation of a world community or a world state are also utopian. The only way to hope to avoid a world nuclear war is to renew diplomacy.

In his concept, G. Morgenthau proceeds from six principles of political realism, which he justifies at the very beginning of his book (20). Briefly, they look like this:

1. Politics, like society as a whole, is governed by objective laws, the roots of which are in the eternal and unchanging human nature. Therefore, it is possible to create a rational theory that is able to reflect these laws - although only relatively and partially. Such a theory makes it possible to separate objective truth in international politics from subjective judgments about it.

2. The main indicator of political realism is "the concept of interest expressed in terms of power." It provides a link between the mind seeking to understand international politics and the facts to be known. It allows us to understand politics as an independent sphere of human life, not reducible to ethical, aesthetic, economic or religious spheres. This notion thus avoids two errors. First, judgments of a politician's interest based on motives rather than behavior. And, secondly, deriving the interest of a politician from his ideological or moral preferences, and not from his "official duties".

Political realism includes not only a theoretical but also a normative element: it insists on the need for rational politics. A rational policy is a correct policy, because it minimizes risks and maximizes benefits. At the same time, the rationality of politics also depends on its moral and practical goals.

3. The content of the concept of "interest expressed in terms of power" is not invariable. It depends on the political and cultural context in which the formation of the state's international policy takes place. This also applies to the concepts of "power" and "political balance", as well as to such an initial concept, denoting the main character of international politics, as the "nation-state".

Political realism differs from all other theoretical schools primarily in the fundamental question of how to change

modern world. He is convinced that such a change can only be brought about by the skillful use of objective laws that have worked in the past and will work in the future, and not by subordinating political reality to some abstract ideal that refuses to recognize such laws.

4. Political realism recognizes the moral significance of political action. But at the same time, he is also aware of the existence of an inevitable contradiction between the moral imperative and the requirements of successful political action. The main moral requirements cannot be applied to the activities of the state as abstract and universal norms. They must be considered in the specific circumstances of place and time. The state cannot say: "Let the world perish, but justice must prevail!". It cannot afford suicide. Therefore, the highest moral virtue in international politics is moderation and caution.

5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of any nation with universal moral standards. It is one thing to know that nations are subject to the moral law in their politics, and quite another to claim to know what is good and what is bad in international relations.

6. The theory of political realism comes from a pluralistic conception of human nature. Real man is both "economic man", and "moral man", and "religious man", etc. Only "political man" is like an animal, because he has no "moral brakes". Only a “moral person” is a fool, because he lacks caution. Only

*PeJEDi^^fe^yLhuman"> can only be a saint, because he has ^y^Ynv^^desires.

With this in mind, political realism maintains the relative autonomy of these aspects and insists that the knowledge of each of them requires abstraction from others and takes place in its own terms.

As we will see from the further presentation, not all of the above principles, formulated by the founder of the theory of political realism G. Morgenthau, are unconditionally shared by other adherents - and, even more so, opponents - of this direction. At the same time, its conceptual harmony, the desire to rely on the objective laws of social development, the desire for an impartial and rigorous analysis

The lysis of international reality, which differs from abstract ideals and the fruitless and dangerous illusions based on them - all this contributed to the expansion of the influence and authority of political realism both in the academic environment and in the circles of statesmen in various countries.

However, political realism did not become the undividedly dominant paradigm in the science of international relations. From the very beginning, its serious shortcomings prevented its transformation into a central link, cementing the beginning of a certain unified theory.

The fact is that, proceeding from the understanding of international relations as a “natural state” of power confrontation for the possession of power, political realism, in essence, reduces these relations to interstate ones, which significantly impoverishes their understanding. Moreover, the internal and external policies of the state in the interpretation of political realists look like they are not connected with each other, and the states themselves look like a kind of interchangeable mechanical bodies, with an identical reaction to external influences. The only difference is that some states are strong and others are weak. No wonder one of the influential adherents of political realism, A. Wolfers, built a picture of international relations, comparing the interaction of states on the world stage with the collision of balls on a billiard table (21). The absolutization of the role of force and the underestimation of the importance of other factors, such as spiritual values, sociocultural realities, etc., significantly impoverishes the analysis of international relations and reduces the degree of its reliability. This is all the more true because the content of such key concepts for the theory of political realism as “power” and “national interest” remains rather vague in it, giving rise to discussions and ambiguous interpretation. Finally, in its desire to rely on the eternal and unchanging objective laws of international interaction, political realism has become, in fact, a hostage of its own approach. He did not take into account very important trends and changes that have already taken place, which increasingly determine the nature of modern international relations from those that dominated the international arena until the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, another circumstance was overlooked: the fact that these changes require the use, along with traditional ones, of new methods and means of scientific analysis of international relations. All this caused criticism in the hell-

than political realism on the part of adherents of other sub-s, and, above all, on the part of representatives of the so-called modernist direction and diverse theories of interdependence and integration. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this controversy, which actually accompanied the theory of political realism from its first steps, contributed to a growing awareness of the need to supplement the political analysis of international realities with sociological ones.

Representatives of ^modernism *, or the "scientific" direction in the analysis of international relations, most often without affecting the initial postulates of political realism, sharply criticized its adherence to traditional methods based mainly on intuition and theoretical interpretation. The controversy between "modernists" and "traditionalists" reaches a special intensity, starting from the 60s, having received the name "great new dispute" in the scientific literature (see, for example: 12 and 22). The source of this dispute was the persistent desire of a number of researchers of the new generation (Quincy Wright, Morton Caplan, Karl Deutsch, David Singer, Kalevi Holsti, Ernst Haas and many others) to overcome the shortcomings of the classical approach and give the study of international relations a truly scientific status. Hence the increased attention to the use of mathematics, formalization, modeling, data collection and processing, empirical verification of results, as well as other research procedures borrowed from exact disciplines and opposed to traditional methods based on the researcher's intuition, judgments by analogy, etc. . This approach, which arose in the United States, touched upon studies not only of international relations, but also of other areas of social reality, being an expression of the penetration into the social sciences of a broader trend of positivism that arose on European soil as early as the 19th century.

Indeed, Sei-Simon and O. Comte made an attempt to apply rigorous scientific methods to the study of social phenomena. The presence of a solid empirical tradition, methods that have already been tested in such disciplines as sociology or psychology, an appropriate technical base that gives researchers new means of analysis, prompted American scientists, starting with K. Wright, to strive to use all this baggage in the study of international relations. Such a desire was accompanied by a rejection of a priori judgments regarding the influence of certain factors on the nature of inter-

international relations, rejecting both any "metaphysical prejudices" and conclusions based, like Marxism, on deterministic hypotheses. However, as M. Merle emphasizes (see: 16, pp. 91-92), this approach does not mean that one can do without a global explanatory hypothesis. The study of natural phenomena has developed two opposite models, between which even specialists in the field of social sciences vacillate. On the one hand, this is the teaching of Charles Darwin about the ruthless struggle of species and the law of natural selection and its Marxist interpretation. On the other hand, the organic philosophy of H. Spencer, which is based on the concept of constancy and stability of biological and social phenomena. Positivism in the USA took the second path - the path of assimilation of society to a living organism, whose life is based on the differentiation and coordination of its various functions. From this point of view, the study of international relations, as well as any other type of social relations, should begin with an analysis of the functions performed by their participants, with a transition then to the study of interactions between their carriers and, finally, to problems related to the adaptation of the social organism to to your surroundings. In the heritage of organicism, according to M. Merl, two trends can be distinguished. One of them focuses on the study of the behavior of actors, the other - the articulation of various types of such behavior. Accordingly, the first gave rise to behaviorism, and the second to functionalism and systematic approach in the science of international relations (see: ibid., p. 93).

Being a reaction to the shortcomings of the traditional methods of studying international relations used in the theory of political realism, modernism did not become in any way a homogeneous trend - either in theoretical or methodological terms. What he has in common is mainly a commitment to an interdisciplinary approach, a desire to apply rigorous scientific methods and procedures, to increase the number of verifiable empirical data. Its shortcomings lie in the factual denial of the specifics of international relations, the fragmentation of specific research objects, which leads to the virtual absence of a complete picture of international relations, and the inability to avoid subjectivism. Nevertheless, many studies of adherents of the modernist trend turned out to be very fruitful, enriching science not only with new methods, but also with very significant

my conclusions drawn from them. It is also important to note that they opened the prospect of a microsociological paradigm in the study of international relations.

If the controversy between the adherents of modernism and political realism concerned mainly the methods of studying international relations, then representatives of transnationalism (Robert O. Koohane, Joseph Nye), integration theories (David Mitrany) and interdependence (Ernst Haas, David Mo-urs) criticized the very conceptual foundations of the classical school. At the center of the new "big dispute" that flared up in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the role of the state as a participant in international relations, the importance of national interest and strength for understanding the essence of what is happening on the world stage.

Supporters of various theoretical currents, which can be conditionally called "transnationalists", put forward the general idea that political realism and the statist paradigm inherent in it do not correspond to the nature and main trends of international relations and therefore should be discarded. International relations go far beyond the framework of interstate interactions based on national interests and power confrontation. The state, as an international actor, loses its monopoly. In addition to states, individuals, enterprises, organizations, and other non-state associations take part in international relations. Diversity of participants, types (cultural and scientific cooperation, economic exchanges, etc.) and “channels” ( partnerships between universities, religious organizations, communities and associations, etc.) interactions between them, displace the state from the center of international communication, contribute to the transformation of such communication from “international” (i.e. interstate, if we recall the etymological meaning of this term) into “ transnational* (i.e. carried out in addition to and without the participation of states). “The rejection of the prevailing intergovernmental approach and the desire to go beyond interstate interactions led us to think in terms of transnational relations,” American scientists J. Nye and R. Koohei write in the preface to their book Transnational Relations and World Politics.

Revolutionary changes in the technology of communications and transport, the transformation of the situation in world markets, the growth in the number

and the importance of transnational corporations stimulated the emergence of new trends on the world stage. The prevailing among them are: the outpacing growth of world trade compared to world production, the penetration of the processes of modernization, urbanization and the development of means of communication in developing countries, the strengthening of the international role of small states and private entities, and finally, the reduction in the ability of great powers to control the state of the environment. The generalizing consequence and expression of all these processes is the increase in the interdependence of the world and the relative decrease in the role of force in international relations (23). Proponents of transnationalism1 are often inclined to consider the sphere of transnational relations as a kind of international society, to the analysis of which the same methods are applicable that make it possible to understand and explain the processes occurring in any social organism. Thus, in essence, we are talking about a macrosociological paradigm in the approach to the study of international relations.

Transnationalism contributed to the awareness of a number of new phenomena in international relations, so many of the provisions of this trend continue to be developed by its supporters in the 90s. (24). At the same time, his undoubted ideological kinship with classical idealism, with its inherent inclinations to overestimate the real significance of observed trends in changing the nature of international relations, left its mark on him. There is also a noticeable similarity between the provisions put forward by transnationalism and a number of provisions advocated by the neo-Marxist trend in the science of international relations.

Representatives of neo-Marxism (Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, Samir Amin, Arjiri Immanuel, Immanuel Wallerstein and others) - a trend as heterogeneous as transnationalism - are also united by the idea of the integrity of the world community and a certain utopianism in assessing its future. At the same time, the starting point and the basis of their conceptual constructions is the idea of the asymmetry of the interdependence of modern

"Among them, one can name not only many scientists from the USA, Europe, and other regions of the world, but also well-known political figures - for example, such as former French President V. Giscard d" Estaing, influential non-governmental political organizations and research centers - for example. Palme Commission, Brandt Commission, Club of Rome, etc.

moreover, about the real dependence of economically underdeveloped countries on industrial states, about the exploitation and robbery of the former by the latter. Based on some theses of classical Marxism, neo-Marxists represent the space of international relations in the form of a global empire, the periphery of which remains under the yoke of the center even after the former colonial countries gained their political independence. This manifests itself in the inequality of economic exchanges and uneven development (25).

For example, the “center”, within which about 80% of all world economic transactions are carried out, depends in its development on the raw materials and resources of the “periphery”. In turn, the countries of the periphery are consumers of industrial and other products produced outside of them. Thus, they fall into the dependence of the center, becoming victims of unequal economic exchange, fluctuations in world prices for raw materials and economic assistance from developed countries. Therefore, in the end, "economic growth based on integration into the world market is underdeveloped development" (26).

In the 1970s, such an approach to the consideration of international relations became for the countries of the "third world" the basis of the idea of the need to establish a new world economic order. Under the pressure of these countries, which constitute the majority of the member countries of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly in April 1974 adopted an appropriate declaration and program of action, and in December of the same year, a Charter on the economic rights and obligations of states.

Thus, each of the considered theoretical currents has its strengths and its shortcomings, each reflects certain aspects of reality and finds one or another manifestation in the practice of international relations. The controversy between them contributed to their mutual enrichment, and, consequently, to the enrichment of the science of international relations as a whole. At the same time, it cannot be denied that this controversy did not convince the scientific community of the superiority of any one over the others, nor did it lead to their synthesis. Both of these conclusions can be illustrated by the example of the concept of neorealism.

This term itself reflects the desire of a number of American scientists (Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, Joseph Greiko, etc.) to preserve the advantages of the classical tradition and at the same time

namely, to enrich it, taking into account the new international realities and the achievements of other theoretical trends. It is significant that one of the most long-standing supporters of transnationalism, Koohane, in the 80s. comes to the conclusion that the central concepts of political realism "power", "national interest", rational behavior, etc. - remain an important tool and condition for a fruitful analysis of international relations (27). On the other hand, K. Walz speaks of the need to enrich the realistic approach due to the scientific rigor of the data and the empirical verifiability of the conclusions, the need for which the supporters of the traditional view, as a rule, rejected.

The emergence of the school of neorealism in international relations is associated with the publication of the book by K. Waltz "The Theory of International Politics", the first edition of which was published in 1979 (28). Defending the main provisions of political realism (“the natural state” of international relations, rationality in the actions of the main actors, national interest as their main motive, the desire to possess power), its author at the same time criticizes his predecessors for the failure of attempts to create a theory of international politics as an autonomous discipline. He criticizes Hans Morgenthau for identifying foreign policy with international politics, and Raymond Aron for his skepticism about the possibility of creating International Relations as an independent theory.

Insisting that any theory of international relations should be based not on particulars, but on the integrity of the world, taking as its starting point the existence of a global system, and not the states that are its elements, Waltz takes a certain step towards rapprochement with transnationalists.

At the same time, the systemic nature of international relations, according to K. Waltz, is determined not by the actors interacting here, not by their main features (associated with geographical location, demographic potential, socio-cultural specifics, etc.), but by the properties of the structure of the international system. (In this regard, neorealism is often classified as structural realism or simply structuralism.) Being a consequence of the interactions of international actors, the structure of the international system at the same time is not reduced to a simple sum of such interactions, but represents

is an independent phenomenon capable of imposing certain restrictions on states, or, on the contrary, offering them favorable opportunities on the world stage.

It should be emphasized that, according to neorealism, the structural properties of the international system do not actually depend on any efforts of small and medium-sized states, being the result of interactions between great powers. This means that it is they who are characterized by the "natural state" of international relations. As for the interactions between the great powers and other states, they can no longer be characterized as anarchic, for they take on other forms, which most often depend on the will of the great powers.

One of the followers of structuralism, Barry Bazan, developed its main provisions in relation to regional systems, which he considers as intermediate between global international and state systems (29). The most important feature of regional systems is, from his point of view, the security complex. The point is that neighboring states turn out to be so closely connected with each other in matters of security that the national security of one of them cannot be separated from the national security of others. The structure of any regional subsystem is based on two factors, which are considered in detail by the author:

the distribution of opportunities among the existing actors and the relations of friendliness or hostility between them. At the same time, B. Bazan shows that both of them are subject to manipulation by the great powers.

Using the methodology proposed in this way, the Danish researcher M. Mozaffari made it the basis for the analysis of the structural changes that occurred in the Persian Gulf as a result of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and the subsequent defeat of Iraq by allied (and in essence - American) troops (30). As a result, he came to the conclusion about the operational nature of structuralism, about its advantages in comparison with other theoretical directions. At the same time, Mozaffari also shows the weaknesses inherent in neorealism, among which he names the propositions about the eternity and immutability of such characteristics of the international system as its “natural state”, the balance of forces, as a way of stabilizing, its inherent static nature (see: ibid., p. 81).

due to its own advantages than to the heterogeneity and weakness of any other theory. And the desire to maintain maximum continuity with the classical school means that most of its inherent shortcomings remain the lot of neorealism (see: 14, p. 300, 302). An even more severe sentence is passed by the French authors M.-K. Smooey and B. Badi, according to which the theories of international relations, remaining in the captivity of the Western-centric approach, were unable to reflect the radical changes taking place in the world system, as well as “predict neither accelerated decolonization in the post-war period, nor the outbreak of religious fundamentalism, nor the end of the Cold War , nor the collapse of the Soviet empire. In short, nothing that relates to sinful social reality” (31).

Dissatisfaction with the state and possibilities of the science of international relations has become one of the main motives for the creation and improvement of a relatively autonomous discipline - the sociology of international relations. The most consistent efforts in this direction have been made by French scientists.

3. French sociological school

Most of the works published in the world devoted to the study of international relations still today bear the undoubted stamp of the predominance of American traditions. At the same time, it is indisputable that since the beginning of the 1980s, the influence of European theoretical thought, and in particular the French school, has become more and more noticeable in this area. One of the well-known scientists, Professor M. Merl of the Sorbonne, noted in 1983 that in France, despite the relative youth of the discipline that studies international relations, three major trends have emerged. One of them is guided by the "empirical-descriptive approach" and is represented by the works of such authors as Charles Sorgbib, Serge Dreyfus, Philippe Moreau-Defargue and others. Nancy and Reims. Finally, the distinguishing feature of the third trend is the sociological approach, which has received its most striking embodiment in the works of R. Aron (32).

In the context of this work, one of the most significant features of modern

of the French school in the study of international relations. The fact is that each of the theoretical currents discussed above - idealism and political realism, modernism and transnationalism, Marxism and neo-Marxism - exist in France as well. At the same time, they are refracted here in the works of the historical and sociological trend that brought the greatest fame to the French school, which left their mark on the entire science of international relations in this country. The influence of the historical-sociological approach is felt in the works of historians and lawyers, philosophers and political scientists, economists and geographers dealing with the problems of international relations. As domestic experts note, the formation of the basic methodological principles characteristic of the French theoretical school of international relations was influenced by the teachings of the philosophical, sociological and historical thought of France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and above all Comte's positivism. It is in them that one should look for such features of French theories of international relations as attention to the structure of social life, a certain historicism, the predominance of the comparative historical method and a certain skepticism regarding the mathematical methods of research (33).

At the same time, in the works of certain specific authors, these features are modified depending on the two main currents of sociological thought that have already developed in the 20th century. One of them is based on the theoretical legacy of E. Durkheim, the second comes from the methodological principles formulated by M. Weber. Each of these approaches is formulated with the utmost clarity by such major representatives of the two lines in the French sociology of international relations as, for example, Raymond Aron and Gaston Boutoul.

“The sociology of Durkheim,” writes R. Aron in his memoirs, “did not affect in me either the metaphysics that I aspired to become, or the reader of Proust, who wants to understand the tragedy and comedy of people living in society” (34). “Neo-Durkheimism,” he argued, is something like Marxism in reverse: if the latter describes class society in terms of the omnipotence of the dominant ideology and downplays the role of moral authority, the former expects to give morality its lost superiority over minds. However, the denial of the existence of a dominant ideology in society is just as utopian as the ideologization of society. Different classes cannot separate

the same values, like a totalitarian and liberal society, cannot have the same theory (see: ibid., pp. 69-70). Weber, on the contrary, attracted Aron by the fact that while objectifying social reality, he did not "reify" it, did not ignore the rationality that people attach to their practical activities and their institutions. Aron points to three reasons for his adherence to the Weberian approach: M. Weber's assertion about the immanence of the meaning of social reality, closeness to politics, and concern for epistemology, characteristic of the social sciences (see: ibid., p. 71). The oscillation between a multitude of plausible interpretations and the only true explanation of this or that social phenomenon, which is central to Weber's thought, became the basis for Aron's view of reality, permeated with skepticism and criticism of normativism in the understanding of social - including international - relations.

It is therefore quite logical that R. Aron considers international relations in the spirit of political realism - as a natural or pre-civil state. In the era of industrial civilization and nuclear weapons, he emphasizes, wars of conquest become both unprofitable and too risky. But this does not mean a fundamental change in the main feature of international relations, which consists in the legitimacy and legitimacy of the use of force by their participants. Therefore, Aron emphasizes, peace is impossible, but war is improbable. From this follows the specifics of the sociology of international relations: its main problems are determined not by the minimum of social consensus, which is characteristic of intra-social relations, but by the fact that they "deploy in the shadow of war." For it is conflict, not its absence, that is normal for international relations. Therefore, the main thing that needs to be explained is not the state of peace, but the state of war.

R. Aron names four groups of the main problems of the sociology of international relations applicable to the conditions of traditional (post-industrial) civilization. Firstly, it is "to clarify the relationship between the weapons used and the organization of armies, between the organization of the army and the structure of society." Second, "the study of which groups in a given society benefit from conquest." Thirdly, the study “in every era, in every particular diplomatic system, of that set of unwritten rules, more or less respected values that characterize wars and

conduct of the communities themselves in relation to each other. Finally, fourthly, an analysis of “the unconscious functions that armed conflicts perform in history” (35). Of course, most of the current problems of international relations, Aron emphasizes, cannot be the subject of impeccable sociological research in terms of expectations, roles and values. However, since the essence of international relations has not undergone fundamental changes in the modern period, the above problems remain important today. New ones can be added to them, arising from the conditions of international interaction characteristic of the second half of the 20th century. But the main thing is that as long as the essence of international relations will remain the same, as long as it will be determined by the pluralism of sovereignties, the study of the decision-making process will remain the central problem. From here, Aron draws a pessimistic conclusion, according to which the nature and state of international relations depend mainly on those who lead states - on "rulers", "who can only be advised and hope that they will not be crazy." And this means that “sociology applied to international relations reveals, so to speak, its own limits” (see: ibid., p. 158).

At the same time, Aron does not give up the desire to determine the place of sociology in the study of international relations. In his seminal work, Peace and War Between Nations, he singles out four aspects of such a study, which he describes in the relevant sections of this book: Theory, Sociology, History, and Praxeology (36).

The first section defines the basic rules and conceptual tools of analysis. Using his favorite comparison of international relations with sports, R. Aron shows that there are two levels of theory. The first is designed to answer questions about “what tricks the players have the right to use and which are not; how they are distributed on the different lines of the playing court; what they do to increase the effectiveness of their actions and to destroy the efforts of the enemy. Within the framework of the rules that answer such questions, numerous situations can arise, which may be random, or may be the result of pre-planned actions by the players. Therefore, for each match, the coach develops an appropriate plan that clarifies the task of each player and his actions in certain typical situations,

which may develop on site. At this - the second - level of theory, it defines recommendations that describe the rules for the effective behavior of various participants (for example, a goalkeeper, a defender, etc.) in certain circumstances of the game. In the section, strategy and diplomacy are singled out and analyzed as typical types of behavior of participants in international relations, a set of means and goals characteristic of any international situation, as well as typical systems of international relations are considered.

On this basis, the sociology of international relations is built, the subject of which is primarily the behavior of international actors. Sociology is called upon to answer the question of why a given state behaves in the international arena in this way and not in some other way. Its main task is to study the determinants and patterns, material and physical, as well as social and moral variables that determine the policy of states and the course of international events. It also analyzes such issues as the nature of the influence of the political regime and/or ideology on international relations. Their clarification allows the sociologist to derive not only certain rules for the behavior of international actors, but also to identify social types international conflicts, as well as to formulate the laws of development of some typical international situations. Continuing the comparison with sports, at this stage the researcher no longer acts as an organizer or trainer. Now he is tackling issues of a different kind. How do matches unfold not on the blackboard, but on the playground? What are the specific features of the techniques used by players from different countries? Is there Latin, English, American football? How much of the team's success belongs to technical virtuosity, and how much to team morale?

Answering these questions, Aron continues, is impossible without turning to historical research: one must follow the course of specific matches, changes in techniques, a variety of techniques and temperaments. The sociologist must constantly turn to both theory and history. If he does not understand the logic of the game, then he will follow the actions of the players in vain and will not be able to understand the meaning of the tactical pattern of this or that game. In the section on history, Aron describes the characteristics of the world system and its subsystems, analyzes various models of deterrence strategy in the nuclear age, traces the evolution of diplomacy

matter between the two poles of the bipolar world and within each of them.

Finally, in the fourth part, devoted to praxeology, another symbolic character appears - the arbitrator. How should the provisions written in the rules of the game be interpreted? Was there really a violation of the rules under certain conditions? At the same time, if the referee “judges” the players, then the players and spectators, in turn, silently or noisily, inevitably “judge” the referee himself, the players of the same team “judge” both their partners and rivals, etc. All of these judgments oscillate between efficiency scores ("he played well"), punishment scores ("he did the right thing"), and morality scores ("this team behaved in the spirit of the game"). Even in sports, not everything that is not forbidden is morally justified. This applies even more so to international relations. Their analysis also cannot be limited only to observation and description, but requires judgments and evaluations. What strategy can be considered moral and what - reasonable or rational? What are the strengths and weaknesses of striving for peace through the rule of law? What are the advantages and disadvantages of trying to achieve it by establishing an empire?

As already noted, Aron's book "Peace and War between Nations" has played and continues to play a significant role in the formation and development of the French scientific school, and in particular - the sociology of international relations. Of course, the followers of his views (Jean-Pierre Derrienick, Robert Boek, Jacques Unzinger and others) take into account that many of the provisions expressed by Aron belong to their time. However, he himself admits in his memoirs that “he did not half achieve his goal”, and to a large extent this self-criticism concerns just the sociological section, and in particular - the specific application of patterns and determinants to the analysis of specific problems (see: 34, pp. 457-459). However, his very understanding of the sociology of international relations, and most importantly, the rationale for the need for its development, has largely retained its relevance today.

Explaining this understanding, J.-P. Derrenik (37) emphasizes that since there are two main approaches to the analysis of social relations, there are two types of sociology:

deterministic sociology, continuing the tradition of E. Durkheim, and the sociology of action, based on the approaches developed by M. Weber. The difference between them is rather conditional, because. actionalism does not deny causality, but determi-

nism is also "subjective", for it is the formulation of the intention of the researcher. Its justification lies in the researcher's necessary distrust of the judgments of the people he studies. Specifically, this difference consists in the fact that the sociology of action proceeds from the existence of causes of a special kind that must be taken into account. These causes are decisions, that is, a choice between many possible events, which is made depending on the existing state of information and specific evaluation criteria. The sociology of international relations is a sociology of action. It proceeds from the fact that the most essential feature of facts (things, events) is their endowment with meaning (which is associated with the rules of interpretation) and value (associated with evaluation criteria). Both depend on information. Thus, at the center of the problems of the sociology of international relations is the concept of "solution". At the same time, it should proceed from the goals that people pursue (from their decisions), and not from the goals that they should pursue in the opinion of the sociologist (ie, from interests).

As for the second trend in the French sociology of international relations, it is represented by the so-called polemology, the main provisions of which were laid down by Gaston Boutoul and are reflected in the works of such researchers as Jean-Louis Annequin, Jacques Freund, Lucien Poirier and others. The basis of polemology is a comprehensive study of wars, conflicts and other forms of "collective aggressiveness" using the methods of demography, mathematics, biology and other exact and natural sciences.

The basis of polemology, writes G. Butul, is dynamic sociology. The latter is "a part of that science which studies the variations of societies, the forms they take, the factors which condition or correspond to them, and the modes of their reproduction" (38). Based on the position of E. Durkheim that sociology is “history meaningful in a certain way”, polemology proceeds from the fact that, firstly, it was the war that gave rise to history, since the latter began exclusively as the history of armed conflicts. And it is unlikely that history will ever completely cease to be a "history of wars." Secondly, war is the main factor in that collective imitation, or, in other words, dialogue and borrowing of cultures, which plays such a significant role in social change. This is, first of all, “violent imitation”: war does not allow states and peoples to

to live in autarky, in self-isolation, therefore it is the most energetic and most effective form of contact between civilizations. But besides, it is also a “voluntary imitation” associated with the fact that peoples passionately borrow from each other types of weapons, methods of waging wars, etc. - up to the fashion for military uniforms. Thirdly, wars are the engine of technological progress: for example, the desire to destroy Carthage became an incentive for the Romans to master the art of navigation and shipbuilding. And in our day, all nations continue to exhaust themselves in pursuit of new technical means and methods of destruction, shamelessly copying each other in this. Finally, fourthly, war is the most conspicuous of all conceivable transitional forms in social life. It is the result and source of both disturbance and restoration of balance.

Polemology must avoid a political and legal approach, remembering that "politics is the enemy of sociology", which it constantly tries to subjugate, make it its servant - just as theology did in relation to philosophy in the Middle Ages. Therefore, polemology cannot actually study current conflicts, and therefore, the historical approach is the main thing for it.

The main task of polemology is an objective and scientific study of wars as a social phenomenon that can be observed in the same way as any other social phenomenon and which, at the same time, is able to explain the causes of global changes in social development throughout human history. At the same time, it must overcome a number of methodological obstacles related to the pseudo-obviousness of wars; with their seeming complete dependence on the will of people (while we should talk about changes in the nature and correlation of social structures); with legal illusory, explaining the causes of wars by factors of theological (divine will), metaphysical (protection or expansion of sovereignty) or anthropomorphic (likening wars to quarrels between individuals) law. Finally, polemology must overcome the symbiosis of the sacralization and politicization of wars associated with the combination of the lines of Hegel and Clausewitz.

What are the main features of the positive methodology of this “new chapter in sociology”, as G. Butul calls the polemological trend in his book (see: ibid., p. 8)? First of all, he emphasizes that polemology has for its

purposes, a truly huge source base, which is rarely available to other branches of sociological science. Therefore, the main question is in what directions to classify the countless facts of this huge array of documentation. Butul names eight such areas: 1) description of material facts according to the degree of their diminishing objectivity; 2) a description of the types of physical behavior, based on the ideas of participants in wars about their goals;

3) the first stage of explanation: the opinions of historians and analysts;

4) the second stage of explanation: theological, metaphysical, moralistic and philosophical "views and doctrines; 5) selection and grouping of facts and their primary interpretation; 6) hypotheses regarding the objective functions of war; 7) hypotheses regarding the periodicity of wars; 8) social typology wars - i.e. the dependence of the main characteristics of the war on the typical features of a particular society (see: ibid., pp. 18-25).

M.: 2003 - 590 p.

The most well-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 being paid to the globalization of world development, changes in the nature of threats to international security, and the features of a new generation of conflicts. For students of higher educational institutions students 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

The size: 5.8 MB

Watch, download:drive.google

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 9
Chapter 1. Object and subject of international political science 19
1. The concept and criteria of international relations 20.
2. World politics 27
3. Relationship between domestic and foreign policy 30
4. The subject of international political science 37
Literature 44
Chapter 2. The problem of method in the theory of international relations 46
1. Significance of the problem of method 46
2. Methods of situation analysis 50
Surveillance 51
Examining Documents 51
Comparison 52
3. Explicative methods 54
Content analysis 54
Event Apalise 54
Cognitive mapping 55
Experiment 57
4 Predictive methods 58
Delphi method 59
Building Scenarios 59
System approach.60
5. Analysis of the decision-making process 70
Literature 75
Chapter 3. The problem of laws of international relations 77
one; 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
1. Traditions: international relations in the history of socio-political thought 97
2. "Canonical" paradigms: the basics 105
Liberal-idealistic paradigm 106
Political realism 109
Marxist-Leninist paradigm 113
3. "Great Disputes": The Place of Political Realism 117
Literature 122
Chapter 5. Modern schools and trends in the theory of international relations 125
1. The dispute between neo-realism and neo-liberalism 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 systems theory 168
2. Features and main directions of a 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 close in meaning 214
The question of the historical uniqueness of globalization 217
The 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 IGO 239
General characteristics and types of INGOs 242
3. 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 ends and means 267
General idea of strategy 267
Big strategy.; 270
Crisis management strategies 271
World strategies 272
Strategy and diplomacy 275
3. Force and violence as part of ends and means 277
Literature 286
Chapter 10. National interests: concept, structure, methodological and political role 288
1. Discussions about the legality of use and about the content of the concept of "national interest" 288
2. Criteria and structure of the national interest 298
On the unconscious element in the structure of the national interest 304
3. Globalization and the 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 security concepts 338
The concept of cooperative security 339
The concept of human security 343
Democratic Peace Theory 344
Literature 347
Chapter 12 legal regulation 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 human disposition 360
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) 364
The 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 special 379
2. Variety of interpretations of international morality 382
Confessional-cultural performances 383
The 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 in the era of the Cold War 407
The 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. The main directions in the study of international conflicts 417
Strategic Research 417
Conflict Studies 420
Peace Research 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. The concept and types of international cooperation 440
2. Interstate cooperation from the standpoint of political realism 443
3. The 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. The Social Foundations of the International Order 470
1. The concept of international order and its historical types 470
The concept of "international order" 470
Historical types of the international order 475
Post-war international order 479
2. Political 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
Annex 2. Resources on the Internet dedicated to research in the field of international relations (AB Tsruzhitt) | 538
Name index 581
Index 587

International relations have long occupied a significant 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 significance is growing even more today, when all countries are woven into a dense, ramified network of diverse interactions that affect the volume and nature of production, the types of goods created and the prices for them, consumption standards, the values and ideals of people.
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the world socialist system, the entry into the international arena of the former Soviet republics as independent states, the search for new Russia its place in the world, the definition 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 fate of humanity as a whole. “In the light of the foregoing, it becomes clear that in our days 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 for the expansion and deepening of the relevant topics in the general humanitarian training of students.

The textbook deals with the international events of our days, indicating the transition of mankind to a new world order. Global transformations and upheavals taking place in all spheres of public life put forward more and more 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 clashes of interests of great powers. The unhindered expansion of information and migration flows covering the world, the diversification of trade, socio-cultural and other exchanges, the massive intrusion of non-state actors inevitably change our views on international relations. But do the ongoing changes mean that international relations are giving way to world politics? Changing the role of the state and the structure of national sovereignty in no way speaks of their disappearance, so world politics should be considered in unity with international relations.

Step 1. Choose books in the catalog and click the "Buy" button;

Step 2. Go to the "Basket" 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.

On the this moment It is possible to purchase printed books, electronic accesses or books as a gift to the library on the EBS website only with 100% advance payment. After payment, you will be given access to the full text of the textbook within the Digital Library or we will start preparing an order for you at the printing house.

Attention! Please do not change the payment method for orders. If you have already chosen a payment method and failed to complete the payment, you need to re-register the order and pay for it in another convenient way.

You can pay for your order using one of the following methods:

Cashless way:
- Bank card: you must fill in 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 correct data in all fields.
  For example, for " class="text-primary">Sberbank Online number required mobile phone and email. For " class="text-primary">Alpha Bank you will need a login in the Alfa-Click service and email.
- Electronic wallet: if you have a Yandex wallet or Qiwi Wallet, you can pay for the order through them. To do this, select the appropriate payment method and fill in the proposed fields, then the system will redirect you to the page to confirm the invoice.

The above diversity has greatly complicated the problem of classifying modern theories of international relations, which in itself becomes a problem of scientific research.

There are many classifications of modern trends in the science of international relations, which is explained by differences in the criteria that can be used by certain authors.

Thus, some of them proceed from geographical criteria, highlighting the Anglo-Saxon concepts, the Soviet and Chinese understanding of international relations, as well as the approach to their study of authors representing the "third world" (8)

Others build a ϲʙᴏ typology based on the degree of generality of the theories under consideration, distinguishing, for example, global explicative theories (such as political realism and the philosophy of history) and particular hypotheses and methods (towards the behaviorist school) (9) author Philip Briar refers to the general theories of political realism, historical sociology and the Marxist-Leninist concept of international relations. As for private theories, among them are: the theory of international actors (Bagat Korani); the theory of interactions within international systems (George Modelski, Samir Amin; Karl Kaiser); theories of strategy, conflict and peace studies (Lucien Poirier, David Singer, Johan Galtwig); integration theory (Amitai Etzioni; Carl Deutsch); theory of international organization (Inis Claude; Jean Siotis; Ernst Haas) (10)

Still others believe that the main dividing line will be the method used by certain researchers, and, from a ϶ᴛᴏ point of view, they focus on the controversy between representatives of traditional and "scientific" approaches to the analysis of international relations (11,12)

The fourth are based on highlighting the central problems characteristic of a particular theory, highlighting the main and turning points in the development of science (13)

Finally, the fifth are based on complex criteria. Thus, the Canadian scientist Bagat Korani builds a typology of theories of international relations on the basis of the methods they use ("classical" and "modernist") and the conceptual vision of the world ("liberal-pluralistic" and "materialist").

Examples of various classifications of modern theories of international relations could be continued. It should not be forgotten that it is important, however, to note at least three significant circumstances. First of all, any of these classifications is conditional and cannot exhaust the diversity of theoretical views and methodological approaches to the analysis of international relations1. Secondly, this diversity does not mean that modern theories have managed to overcome ϲʙᴏe "blood relationship" with the three main paradigms discussed above. Finally, thirdly, contrary to the opposite opinion still encountered today, there is every reason to talk about the emerging synthesis, mutual enrichment, mutual "compromise" between previously irreconcilable directions.

Based on the foregoing, we confine ourselves to a brief consideration of such trends (and their varieties) as political idealism, political realism, modernism, transnationalism and neo-Marxism.

The legacy of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, de Do not forget that Watgel and Clausewitz, on the one hand, Vitoria, Greece, Kant, on the other, found direct reflection in that major scientific discussion that arose in the United States between the two - Lrvymi wars, discussions between realists and idealists. |Idealism in the modern science of international relations also has closer ideological and theoretical sources, such as utopian socialism, liberalism and pacifism of the 19th century. Its main premise is the belief in the need and possibility to end world wars and armed conflicts between states through the legal regulation and democratization of international relations, the spread of the norms of morality and justice to them.According to this direction, the world community of democratic states, with the support and pressure from public opinion, is quite capable of resolving conflicts that arise between its members peacefully, using legal methods. regulation, increasing the number and role of international organizations that contribute to the expansion of mutually beneficial cooperation and exchange.It is important to note that one of its priority topics is the creation of a collective security system based on voluntary disarmament and mutual renunciation of war as an instrument instrument of international politics. In political practice, idealism found its ϲʙᴏe embodiment in the program for the creation of the League of Nations developed after the First World War by American President Woodrow Wilson (17), in the Briand-Kellogg Pact (1928), which provides for the rejection of the use of force in interstate relations, as well as in the Stymson Doctrine (1932), according to which the United States refuses diplomatic recognition of any change if it is achieved by force. In the post-war years, the idealistic tradition found a certain embodiment in the activities of such American politicians as Secretary of State John F. Dulles and Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski (representing, however, not only the political, but also the academic elite of this country), President Jimmy Carter (1976-1980) and President George W. Bush (1988-1992) In the scientific literature, it was represented, in particular, by the book of such American authors as R. Clark and L.B. Dream "Achieving peace through world law." The book proposes a step-by-step project

"Sometimes the ϶ᴛᴏ direction qualifies as utopianism (see, for example: Carr. N. The Twenty Years of Crisis, 1919-1939. London. 1956.

th disarmament and creation of a system of collective security for the whole world for the period 1960-1980.
It is worth noting that the main instrument for overcoming wars and achieving eternal peace between peoples should be a world government led by the UN and acting on the basis of a detailed world constitution (18) Similar ideas are expressed in a number of works by European authors (19) The idea of a world government was also expressed in papal encyclicals: John XXIII - "Pacem in terns" or 04/16/63, Paul VI - "Populorum progressio" dated 03/26/67, and John Paul II - dated 12/2/80, who even today advocates the creation of "political power endowed with universal competence.

Thus, the idealistic paradigm that has accompanied the history of international relations for centuries retains a certain influence on the minds of today. Moreover, it can be said that in recent years its influence on certain aspects of theoretical analysis and forecasting in the field of international relations has even increased, becoming the basis for practical steps taken by the world community to democratize and humanize these relations, as well as attempts to form a new, consciously regulated world order that meets the common interests of all mankind.

With all this, it should be noted that idealism for a long time (and in some respects to this day1) was considered to have lost all influence and, in any case, hopelessly lagged behind the requirements of modernity. Indeed, the normative approach underlying it turned out to be deeply undermined due to the growing tension in Europe in the 1930s, the aggressive policy of fascism and the collapse of the League of Nations, and the unleashing of the world conflict of 1939-1945. and the Cold War in subsequent years. The result was a revival on American soil of the European classical tradition, with its inherent promotion to the fore in the analysis of international relations of such concepts as "power" and "balance of power", "national interest" and "conflict".

It is worth saying that political realism not only subjected idealism to crushing criticism, pointing out, in particular, to the fact that the idealistic illusions of statesmen of that time

They contributed to the unleashing of the Second World War to a large extent, but also proposed a fairly coherent theory. Its most famous representatives - Reinhold Niebuhr, Frederick Schumann, George Kennan, George Schwarzenberger, Kenneth Thompson, Henry Kissinger, Edward Carr, Arnold Walfers and others - determined the path of the science of international relations for a long time. The undisputed leaders of the ϶ᴛᴏth direction were Hans Morgenthau and Reymond Aron.

1 The work of G. Morgenthau "It is worth saying - the political relations between the Nazis] Mi. Struggle for power", the first edition of which was published in | 48, became its kind of "bible" for many generations (D || political scientists both in the United States itself and in other countries "" JSffaaa. From the position of G. Morgenthau, international relations / nn are an arena of acute confrontation between states. In ostyuve of all international activities of the latter lies their desire to increase their power, or strength (power) and reduce the power of others. With ϶ᴛᴏm, the term "power" is understood in the broadest sense: as the military and economic power of the state, the guarantee of its greatest security and prosperity, glory and prestige, the possibility of spreading its ideological attitudes and spiritual values. the state provides itself with power, and at the same time two complementary aspects of its foreign policy - military strategy and diplomacy.The first of them is interpreted in the spirit of Clausewitz: how continuation of politics by violent means. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is a peaceful struggle for power. We note the fact that in the modern era, says G. Morgenthau, states express their need for power in terms of "national interest". The result of the desire of each of the states to maximize the satisfaction of their national interests will be the establishment of a certain balance (balance) of power (strength) on the world stage, which will be the only realistic way to ensure and maintain peace. Actually, the state of the world - ϶ᴛᴏ is the state of balance of power between states.

According to Morgenthau, there are two factors that are able to keep the aspirations of states to power within some limits - ϶ᴛᴏ international law and morality. At the same time, relying too much on them in an effort to ensure peace between states would mean falling into the unforgivable illusions of the idealist school. The problem of war and peace has no chance of being solved by means of collective security mechanisms or

In his concept, G. Morgenthau proceeds from six principles of political realism, which he substantiates at the very beginning of his book (20) In brief, they look as follows.

1. It is worth saying that politics, like society as a whole, is governed by objective laws, the roots of which are in the eternal and unchanging human nature. Therefore, there is the possibility of creating a rational theory, which is able to reflect these laws - although only relatively and partially. It is this theory that makes it possible to separate objective truth in international politics from subjective judgments about it.

2. The main indicator of political realism is "the concept of interest expressed in terms of power." It is worth noting that it provides a link between the mind, seeking to understand international politics, and the facts to be known. It is worth noting that it allows us to understand politics as an independent sphere of human life, not related to the data, aesthetic, economic or religious spheres. Note that this concept thus avoids two errors. First of all, judgments about the interest of a politician on the basis of motives, and not on the basis of his behavior. And, secondly, deducing the interest of a politician from his ideological or moral preferences, and not from his "official duties".

It is worth saying that political realism includes not only a theoretical, but also a normative element: it insists on the need for rational politics. A rational policy is a correct policy, as it minimizes risks and maximizes benefits. At the same time, the rationality of politics also depends on its moral and practical goals.

3. The content of the concept "interest expressed in terms of power" will not be unchanged. It is important to understand that it depends on the political and cultural context in which the formation of the international policy of the state takes place. This also applies to the concepts of "power" (power) and "political balance", as well as to such an initial concept, denoting the main character of international politics, as the "nation-state".

It is worth saying that political realism differs from all other theoretical schools primarily in the fundamental question of how to change

4. It is worth saying - political realism recognizes the moral significance of political action. But at the same time, he is also aware of the existence of an inevitable contradiction between the moral imperative and the requirements of successful political action. The main moral requirements cannot be applied to the activities of the state as abstract and universal norms. It is worth noting that they must be considered in the specific circumstances of place and time. The state cannot say: "Let the world perish, but justice must prevail!". It is worth noting that it cannot afford suicide. Therefore, the highest moral virtue in international politics is moderation and caution.

5. It is worth saying that political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of any nation with universal moral norms. It is important to note that it is one thing to know that nations are subject to the moral law in their politics, and quite another to claim to know what is good and what is bad in international relations.

6. Note that the theory of political realism proceeds from a pluralistic conception of human nature. A real person is ϶ᴛᴏ and "economic man", and "moral man", and "religious man", etc. Only "political man" is like an animal, since he has no "moral brakes". Only a "moral person" is a fool, because he lacks caution. Only

*PeJEDi^^fe^yLhuman"> can be exceptionally holy, because he has ^y^Ynv^^desires.

^Three times, political realism upholds the relative autonomy of these aspects and insists that the knowledge of each of them requires abstraction from others and takes place in its own terms.

As we will see from the further presentation, not all of the above principles, formulated by the founder of the theory of political realism G. Morgenthau, are unconditionally shared by other adherents - and, even more so, opponents - of this direction. With all this, its conceptual harmony, the desire to rely on the objective laws of social development, the desire for an impartial and rigorous analysis

The lysis of international reality, which differs from abstract ideals and the fruitless and dangerous illusions based on them, all contributed to the expansion of the influence and authority of political realism both in the academic environment and in the circles of statesmen in various countries.

At the same time, political realism did not become the undividedly dominant paradigm in the science of international relations. From the very beginning, its serious shortcomings prevented its transformation into a central link, cementing the beginning of a certain unified theory.

The fact is that, proceeding from the understanding of international relations as a "natural state" of power confrontation for the possession of power, political realism, in essence, feeds these relations to interstate ones, which significantly impoverishes their understanding. Moreover, the domestic and foreign policies of the state in the interpretation of political realists look like they are not connected with each other, and the states themselves look like some kind of interchangeable mechanical bodies, with an identical reaction to external influences. The only difference is that some states will be strong, while others will be weak. No wonder one of the influential adherents of political realism, A. Wolfers, built a picture of international relations, comparing the interaction of states on the world stage with the collision of balls on a billiard table (21). reality, etc., - significantly impoverishes the analysis of international relations, reduces the degree of its reliability. This is all the more true because the content of such key concepts for the theory of political realism as "power" and "national interest" remains rather vague in it, giving rise to discussions and ambiguous interpretation. Finally, in its desire to rely on the eternal and unchanging objective laws of international interaction, political realism has, in fact, become a hostage of its own approach. He did not take into account very important trends and changes that have already taken place, which increasingly determine the nature of modern international relations from those that dominated the international arena until the beginning of the 20th century. It is important to note that at the same time one more circumstance was overlooked: the fact that these changes require the use, along with traditional ones, of new methods and means of scientific analysis of international relations. All ϶ᴛᴏ caused criticism in hell-

than political realism on the part of adherents of other sub-hov, and, above all, on the part of representatives of the so-called modernist trend and diverse theories of interdependence and integration. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this controversy, which actually accompanied the theory of political realism from its first steps, contributed to a growing awareness of the need to supplement the political analysis of international realities with sociological ones.

Representatives of ^modernism*, or the "scientific" direction in the analysis of international relations, most often without affecting the initial postulates of political realism, sharply criticized its adherence to traditional methods based mainly on intuition and theoretical interpretation. It is worth saying that the controversy between "modernists" and "traditionalists" reaches a special intensity, starting from the 60s, having received the name "new big dispute" in the scientific literature (see, for example: 12 and 22). the desire of a number of researchers of the new generation (Quincy Wright, Morton Caplan, Karl Deutsch, David Singer, Kalevi Holsti, Ernst Haas and many others) to overcome the shortcomings of the classical approach and give the study of international relations a truly scientific status. Hence the increased attention to the use of mathematics, formalization, modeling, data collection and processing, empirical verification of results, as well as other research procedures borrowed from exact disciplines and opposed to traditional methods based on the researcher's intuition, judgments by analogy, etc. . This approach, which arose in the United States, touched upon studies not only of international relations, but also of other areas of social reality, being an expression of the penetration into the social sciences of a broader trend of positivism that arose on European soil as early as the 19th century.

Indeed, Sei-Simon and O. Comte made an attempt to apply rigorous scientific methods to the study of social phenomena. The presence of a solid empirical tradition, methods that have already been tested in such disciplines as sociology or psychology, a ϲᴏᴏᴛʙᴇᴛϲᴛʙa technical base that gives researchers new means of analysis, prompted American scientists, starting with K. Wright, to strive to use all this baggage in the study of international relations. Such a desire was accompanied by a rejection of a priori judgments regarding the influence of certain factors on the nature of inter-

international relations, rejecting both any "metaphysical prejudices" and conclusions based, like Marxism, on deterministic hypotheses. At the same time, as M. Merl emphasizes (see: 16, pp. 91-92), this approach does not mean that one can do without a global explanatory hypothesis. The study of natural phenomena has developed two opposite models, between which specialists in the field of social sciences also hesitate.
From one point of view, ϶ᴛᴏ is the teaching of Charles Darwin about the ruthless struggle of species and the law of natural selection and its Marxist interpretation. On the other hand, the organic philosophy of G. Spencer, which is based on the concept of constancy and stability of biological and social phenomena. Positivism in the USA took the second path - the path of likening society to a living organism, whose life is based on the differentiation and coordination of its various functions. From a ϶ᴛᴏ point of view, the study of international relations, like any other type of social relations, should begin with an analysis of the functions performed by their participants, with a transition then to the study of interactions between their carriers and, finally, to problems associated with the adaptation of the social organism to his surroundings. In the heritage of organicism, according to M. Merl, two trends can be distinguished. It is important to note that one of them focuses on the study of the behavior of actors, the other - the articulation of various types of such behavior. Accordingly, the first gave rise to behaviorism, and the second - to functionalism and a systematic approach in the science of international relations (see: ibid., p. 93)

Being a reaction to the shortcomings of the traditional methods of studying international relations used in the theory of political realism, modernism did not become in any way a homogeneous trend - either in theoretical or methodological terms. What he will have in common will be mainly a commitment to an interdisciplinary approach, a desire to apply rigorous scientific methods and procedures, to increase the number of verifiable empirical data. Its shortcomings lie in the factual denial of the specifics of international relations, the fragmentation of specific research objects, which leads to the virtual absence of a complete picture of international relations, and the inability to avoid subjectivism. It should be noted that, nevertheless, many studies of adherents of the modernist trend turned out to be very fruitful, enriching science not only with new methods, but also with very significant

my conclusions drawn from them. It should not be forgotten that it is also important to note the fact that they opened the prospect of a microsociological paradigm in the study of international relations.

If the controversy between the adherents of modernism and political realism concerned mainly the methods of studying international relations, then representatives of transnationalism (Robert O. Koohane, Joseph Nye), integration theories (David Mitrani) and interdependence (Ernst Haas, David Mours) criticized the very conceptual foundations of the classical school. At the center of the new "great dispute" that flared up in the late 1960s and early 1970s was the role of the state as a participant in international relations, the importance of national interest and strength for understanding the essence of what is happening on the world stage.

Supporters of various theoretical currents, which can be conditionally called "transnationalists", put forward a common idea, according to which political realism and the etatist paradigm inherent in it do not fit the nature and main trends of international relations and therefore should be discarded. International relations go far beyond the framework of interstate interactions based on national interests and power confrontation. The state, as an international actor, loses its monopoly. In addition to states, individuals, enterprises, organizations, and other non-state associations take part in international relations. The diversity of participants, types (cultural and scientific cooperation, economic exchanges, etc.) and "channels" (partnerships between universities, religious organizations, communities and associations, etc.) of interaction between them, oust the state from the center of international communication , contribute to the transformation of such communication from "international" (i.e., interstate, if we recall the data-logical meaning of the ϶ᴛᴏth term) into "transnational * (i.e., carried out in addition to and without the participation of states)" Rejection of the prevailing intergovernmental approach and the desire to go beyond interstate interactions has led us to think in terms of transnational relations," American scientists J. Nye and R. Kooheyi write in the preface to her book "Transnational Relations and World Politics".

Revolutionary changes in the technology of communications and transport, the transformation of the situation in world markets, the growth in the number

and the importance of transnational corporations stimulated the emergence of new trends on the world stage. The prevailing among them are: the outpacing growth of world trade compared to world production, the penetration of the processes of modernization, urbanization and the development of means of communication in developing countries, the strengthening of the international role of small states and private entities, and finally, the reduction in the ability of great powers to control the state of the environment. The generalizing consequence and expression of all these processes will be an increase in the interdependence of the world and a relative decrease in the role of force in international relations (23) Proponents of transnationalism1 often tend to consider the sphere of transnational relations as a kind of international society, to the analysis of which the same methods are applicable, which allow understanding and explaining the processes occurring in any social organism. Based on all of the above, we come to the conclusion that, in essence, we are talking about a macrosociological paradigm in the approach to the study of international relations.

Transnationalism contributed to the awareness of a number of new phenomena in international relations, which is why many of the provisions of this trend continue to be developed by its supporters in the 90s. (24) At the same time, his undoubted ideological kinship with classical idealism, with its inherent inclinations to overestimate the real significance of observed trends in changing the nature of international relations, left its mark on him. A certain similarity of the provisions put forward by transnationalism with a number of provisions that defend the neo-Marxist trend in the science of international relations will also be noticeable.

Representatives of neo-Marxism (It is worth saying - Paul Baran, It is worth saying - Paul Sweezy, Samir Amin, Arjiri Immanuel, Immanuel Do not forget that Wallerstein and others) - a trend as heterogeneous as transnationalism, is also united by the idea of the integrity of the world community and a certain utopia in assessing its future. At the same time, the starting point and the basis of their conceptual constructions is the idea of the asymmetry of the interdependence of modern

" Among them, one can name not only many scientists from the USA, Europe, and other regions of the world, but also well-known political figures - for example, such as ex-president France V. Giscard d "Estaing, influential non-governmental political organizations and research centers - for example, the Palme Commission, the Brandt Commission, the Club of Rome, etc.

moreover, about the real dependence of economically underdeveloped countries on industrial states, about the exploitation and robbery of the former by the latter. Based on some theses of classical Marxism, neo-Marxists represent the space of international relations in the form of a global empire, the periphery of which remains under the yoke of the center even after the former colonial countries gained their political independence. This will be in the inequality of economic exchanges and uneven development (25)

For example, the "center", within which about 80% of all world economic transactions are carried out, depends in its development on the raw materials and resources of the "periphery". At the same time, the countries of the periphery will be consumers of industrial and other products produced outside of them. It should be noted that in this way they fall into the dependence of the center, becoming victims of unequal economic exchange, fluctuations in world prices for raw materials and economic assistance from developed countries. Therefore, in the end, "economic growth based on integration into the world market is underdeveloped development (tm)" (26)

In the seventies, such an approach to the consideration of international relations became for the countries of the "third world" the basis of the idea of the need to establish a new world economic order. Under the pressure of these countries, which make up the majority of the member countries of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly in April 1974 adopted a declaration and program of action, and in December of the same year, a Charter on economic rights and obligations of states.

Thus, each of the considered theoretical currents has both strengths and weaknesses, each demonstrates certain aspects of reality and finds one or another manifestation in the practice of international relations. It is worth saying that the controversy between them contributed to their mutual enrichment, and, consequently, to the enrichment of the science of international relations as a whole. With all this, it cannot be denied that this controversy did not convince the scientific community of the superiority of any one over the others, nor did it lead to their synthesis. Both these conclusions can be illustrated by the example of the concept of neorealism.

The ϶ᴛᴏt term itself demonstrates the desire of a number of American scientists (Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, Joseph Greiko, etc.) to preserve the advantages of the classical tradition and at the same time

namely, to enrich it, taking into account the new international realities and the achievements of other theoretical trends. It is significant that one of the most long-standing supporters of transnationalism, Koohane, in the 80s. comes to the conclusion that the central concepts of political realism "power", "national interest", rational behavior, etc. - remain an important means and condition for a fruitful analysis of international relations (27) On the other hand, K. Waltz speaks of the need to enrich the realistic approach due to the scientific rigor of the data and the empirical verifiability of the conclusions, the need for which is traditionally rejected by the supporters of the traditional view.

The emergence of the school of neorealism in international relations is associated with the publication of the book by K. Waltz "Note that the theory of international politics", the first edition of which was published in 1979 (28) Defending the main provisions of political realism ("natural state" of international relations, rationality in the actions of the main actors, national interest as their main motive, striving for the possession of power), its author at the same time criticizes their predecessors for the failure of attempts to create a theory of international politics as an autonomous discipline. He criticizes Hans Morgenthau for identifying foreign policy with international politics, and Raymond Aron for his skepticism about the possibility of creating International Relations as an independent theory.

Insisting that any theory of international relations should be based not on particulars, but on the integrity of the world, taking as its starting point the existence of a global system, and not states that will be its elements, Waltz takes a certain step towards rapprochement with transnationalists.

With ϶ᴛᴏm, the systemic nature of international relations is due, according to K. Walz, to actors that do not interact here, not their main features (associated with geographical location, demographic potential, socio-cultural specifics, etc.), but by the features of the structure of the international system . (For this reason, neorealism is often classified as structural realism or simply structuralism.) Being a consequence of the interactions of international actors, the structure of the international system at the same time does not tend to a simple sum of such interactions, but represents

is an independent phenomenon capable of imposing certain restrictions on states, or, on the contrary, offering them favorable opportunities on the world stage.

It should be emphasized that, according to neorealism, the structural features of the international system are actually independent of any efforts of small and medium-sized states, being the result of interactions between great powers. This means that it is precisely to them that the "natural state" of international relations is truly characteristic. As for the interactions between the great powers and other states, they can no longer be characterized as anarchic, as they take on other forms, which most often depend on the will of the great powers.

It is important to note that one of the followers of structuralism, Barry Bazan, developed its main provisions in relation to regional systems, which he considers as intermediate between the global international and state systems (29). security. The point is that neighboring states turn out to be so closely connected with each other in matters of security that the national security of one of them cannot be separated from the national security of others.
It should be noted that the structure of any regional subsystem is based on two factors, which are considered in detail by the author:

the distribution of opportunities among the existing actors and the relations of friendliness or hostility between them. With ϶ᴛᴏm, both, B. Bazan shows, are subject to manipulation by the great powers.

Using the methodology proposed in this way, the Danish researcher M. Mozaffari put it as the basis for the analysis of structural changes that occurred in the Persian Gulf as a result of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and the subsequent defeat of Iraq by allied (and in essence - American) troops (30) As a result, he came to the conclusion about the operational nature of structuralism, about its advantages in comparison with other theoretical directions. With all this, Mozaffari also shows the weaknesses inherent in neorealism, among which he names the propositions about the eternity and immutability of such characteristics of the international system as its "natural state", the balance of forces, as a way of stabilization, its inherent static character (see: ibid., p. .81)

due to its own advantages than to the heterogeneity and weakness of any other theory. And the desire to maintain maximum continuity with the classical school means that the majority of its inherent shortcomings remain the lot of neorealism (see: 14, p. 300, 302) An even more severe sentence is passed by the French authors M.-K. Smooey and B. Badi, according to their theories of international relations, remaining in captivity of the Western-centric approach, were unable to reflect the radical changes taking place in the world system, as well as "predict neither accelerated decolonization in the post-war period, nor the outbreak of religious fundamentalism, nor the end of the Cold War , nor the collapse of the Soviet empire. In short, nothing that relates to sinful social reality "(31)

The most well-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; 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 features of a new generation of conflicts. For students of higher educational institutions studying in the areas and specialties of "International Relations", "Regional Affairs", "Public Relations", "Sociology", "Political Science", as well as undergraduates, graduate students and university professors.

Preface Chapter 1. The object and subject of international political science Chapter 2. The problem of method in the theory of international relations Chapter 3. The problem of regularities in international relations Chapter 4. Traditions, paradigms and disputes in TIR Chapter 5. Modern schools and trends in the theory of international relations Chapter 6 International system Chapter 7. Environment of the system of international relations Chapter 8. Participants of international relations Chapter 9. Goals, means and strategies of participants in international relations Chapter 10. National interests: concept, structure, methodological and political role Chapter 11. International security Chapter 12. Problem legal regulation of international relations Chapter 13. Ethical dimension of international relations Chapter 14. Conflicts in international relations Chapter 15. International cooperation Chapter 16. Social foundations of the international order Instead of a conclusion Appendix 1. Some international principles, doctrines, theories. International organizations, treaties and agreements Appendix 2. Resources on the Internet dedicated to research in the field of international relations (A.B. Zruzhitt) Name index Subject index

Tsygankov theory of international relations pdf. Theory of international relations. Domestic studies of international relations

Interesting articles

Interesting articles