Internal policy of the state. Directions of domestic policy. The essence of foreign policy of states, its goals, functions and means

Among the traditional problems of political psychology: the study of mechanisms for ensuring political influence and types of political leadership, identifying the causes of aggressiveness and violence in politics, studying the mechanism of political decision-making and models of political activity, its motivation, creating psychobiographies of famous political figures aimed at identifying those key points in their lives, which determined the peculiarities of their political character, their characteristic methods of solving political problems and establishing contacts with followers.

Interdependence of domestic and foreign policies

Every state pays attention to its domestic and foreign policies. The internal policy of the state apparatus is aimed at solving its own problems of power: optimizing the interaction of legislative, executive and judicial institutions of power, as well as resolving issues of reproduction of the material and spiritual culture of society, improving the quality of life of the population, improving civil society, ensuring internal security individuals, society and the state itself as a country.

Foreign policy states are determined mainly by national interests, which in international relations can be perceived as fair or unfair, peaceful or aggressive, tolerant or ambitious, consistent or inconsistent with international law. In the course of implementing foreign policy objectives, the state strives to ensure its security and the security of the subjects of society, eliminate or neutralize external threats.

In foreign policy, many other tasks of a diplomatic, economic, social, spiritual and other nature are solved. As a result of foreign policy activities, the country’s state apparatus seeks to create favorable conditions for the implementation of domestic policy. They can be important both for the well-being of citizens, society, and for the apparatus of government itself. Another important desired result of foreign policy is the international recognition and authority of the country and its leadership. The terms “great power”, “developed state”, “moderately developed state”, “tertiary state”, “collaborating state” are filled with specific content in the process of foreign policy interactions. In this case, both real internal and external successes of the state and ideological and manipulative means are used.

Depending on the specific historical cultural development of society and the characteristics of interaction state power with subjects of society, internal politics may have varying degrees of extension to social relations and processes. In countries where indicators of material and spiritual culture have not received developed forms, public administration, as a rule, extends to all aspects of the life of society, and often subordinates them to itself. Public administration itself is carried out in authoritarian forms, which can be based on legal norms or determined subjectively. At the same time, domestic policy is carried out primarily from the top down.

In industrialized and socially developed countries, the internal policy of the state does not apply to all spheres of life of society and types of activities of its subjects. In civil society, independent sociocultural entities are emerging that are capable of reproducing material and spiritual culture without the support of the state apparatus, and even more so without its interference in their affairs. Such internal political governance requires not only an intelligent and fair, active “tsar”, a “good” government and other state institutions, but also democracy based on law, highly developed subjectivity of citizens, and their awareness of their rights and freedoms.

In the course of emerging crises and conflict in any society, the scope of state power expands. The country's state apparatus has more opportunities and means to overcome crises and conflicts in society, including violent ones. legal basis. Long-term inability of the state apparatus to manage successfully social development, unsuccessful domestic policies also cause social tensions in society and lead to a change in government power and political regime.

General features of domestic and foreign policy.The foreign policy of a state is largely determined by the success or failure of its domestic policy. This is their common characteristics.

1. Both domestic and foreign policies are carried out in typical spheres of life of society and community: economic, governmental, social, spiritual, environmental, military-political. The activity, for example, of the state in the foreign economic sphere is based on internal economic policy: how public administration interacts with the financial, industrial, transport, mining, trade and other structures of the country, how it forms and uses the state budget, how it manages state property. The foreign policy legal activity of the state also depends on the state of law within the country, on the activities of legislative, law-executive and other state institutions.

We can say that what is common to the domestic and foreign policies of the state is the identity of their content and main directions of implementation. Effective internal policy on public administration spheres of society's life largely determine the credibility and effectiveness of the state's foreign policy in these areas.

2. Domestic and foreign policy have two varieties, taking into account its scale and time indicators. Both domestic and foreign policy have tactical and strategic components. Tactical (current) policy is aimed at implementing immediate goals and objectives, as well as plans and programs political strategy. It has flexibility, close connection with current political processes, events and situations, the use of temporary agreements, the acquisition of allies (supporters) in solving specific problems, the operational use of methods and means of political interaction, the involvement of citizens (electorates, layers) in election campaigns, the formation of domestic and foreign policy public opinion.

Strategic domestic and foreign policy is aimed at long-term interactions, at the development and implementation of long-term plans and programs, at the future of politics itself, the state and the world community. The essence of strategic policy is the selection and justification of the fundamental significant goals and priorities of the internal and foreign policy development of the state. The content of strategic policy may include: search for political forces, material and technical, financial, spiritual and others necessary resources to achieve the intended goals, the creation of new political parties and blocs within the country and in the international arena, the conclusion of agreements with other states, the forecast of intermediate and final results. Strategic policy is considered to include long-term (10-15 years) and medium-term (3-10 years) stages.

The problem of interconnection and mutual influence of domestic and foreign policy is one of the most complex problems, which was and continues to be the subject of heated debate between various theoretical directions of international political science - traditionalism, political idealism, Marxism and such modern varieties, such as neorealism and neo-Marxism, dependency and interdependence theories, structuralism and transnationalism. Each of these directions proceeds in the interpretation of the problem under consideration from its own ideas about the sources and driving forces of policy. Foreign policy is the general course of a state in international affairs. Through foreign policy, states regulate their relations in accordance with their principles and goals. N. Machiavelli also noted the relationship between foreign and domestic policies. There are many theories of foreign policy that explain its main goals and objectives, essence and functions in different ways. However, there is also general theory, on the basis of which the most effective means and methods for achieving political goals. Achieving foreign policy goals is ensured by developing specific actions in the international arena. There are several stages in the development of a state’s foreign policy course:

1) Drawing up a forecast of the likely development of international relations in general or by region, taking into account the interactions of specific countries and peoples. Making a forecast is a labor-intensive task, but it allows you to identify possible consequences and the amount of resources to achieve goals and solve foreign policy problems.

2) Determining the amount of resources and funds that are necessary to solve the assigned foreign policy tasks.

3) Identification of priorities in state policy in various areas, based on economic and political feasibility.

4) Development of a comprehensive program of foreign policy activities, which is approved by the government.

So, for example, for supporters of political realism, foreign and domestic policies have a single essence, which ultimately boils down to the struggle for power, but are fundamentally different areas government activities. According to G. Morgenthau, many of whose theoretical positions still have their supporters today, foreign policy is determined by national interests. National interests are objective, since they are related to the constant human nature, geographical conditions, sociocultural and historical traditions of the people. They have two components: one constant - this is the imperative of survival, the immutable law of nature; the other is a variable, which is the specific form that these interests take in time and space. The definition of this form belongs to the state, which has a monopoly on communication with outside world. The basis of national interest, reflecting the language of the people, their culture, the natural conditions of their existence, etc., remains constant. That's why internal factors life of the country (political regime, public opinion etc.), which can and do change depending on various circumstances, are not considered by realists as capable of influencing the nature of the national interest; in particular, national interest is not related to the nature of the political regime. Accordingly, domestic and foreign policy have significant autonomy in relation to each other.

On the contrary, from the point of view of representatives of a number of other theoretical directions and schools, domestic and foreign policy are not only related to each other, but this connection is of a deterministic nature. There are two versions of this determinism. One of them is characteristic of orthodox Marxism, from the standpoint of which foreign policy is a reflection of the class essence of the domestic political regime and ultimately depends on the economic relations of society that determine this essence. Hence international relationships in general, they are of a “secondary” and “tertiary”, “transferred” nature.

Another version of determinism is adhered to by supporters of geopolitical concepts, theories of the “rich North” and “poor South,” as well as neo-Marxist theories of dependence, “world center” and “world periphery,” etc. For them, in fact, the exclusive source of domestic politics is external coercion. So, for example, from the point of view of I. Wallerstein, in order to understand the internal contradictions and political struggle in a particular state, it must be considered in a broader context: the context of the integrity of the world, which is a global empire, which is based on the laws of capitalist mode of production - “world-economy”. The “center of the empire” is a small group of economically developed states, consuming the resources of the “world periphery”, and is a producer of industrial products and consumer goods necessary for the existence of the underdeveloped countries that comprise it.

Thus, we're talking about about the existence between the “center” and the “periphery” of relations of asymmetrical interdependence, which is the main field of their foreign policy struggle. The developed countries are interested in maintaining this state (which, in essence, is a state of dependence), while the countries of the “periphery,” on the contrary, strive to change it, to establish a new world economic order. Ultimately, the main interests of both lie in the sphere of foreign policy, on the success of which their internal well-being depends. The significance of internal political processes, the struggle of parties and movements within a particular country, is determined by the role that they are able to play in the context of the “world-economy”.

Another version of determinism is characteristic of representatives of such theoretical trends in international political theory as neorealism and structuralism (acquiring relatively independent significance). For them, foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, and international relations are a continuation of intra-society relations. However, in their opinion, the decisive role in determining foreign policy is played not by national interests, but by the internal dynamics of the international system. In this case, the changing structure of the international system is of main importance: being, ultimately, an indirect result of the behavior of states, as well as a consequence of their very nature and the relations established between them, it at the same time dictates its laws to them. Thus, the issue of determinism in the interaction of the state’s domestic and foreign policies is ultimately resolved in favor of foreign policy.

In turn, representatives of the concepts of world interdependence in the analysis of the issue under consideration proceed from the thesis according to which domestic and foreign policies have a common basis - the state. In order to get a correct idea of ​​world politics, says, for example, Professor at the University of Montreal L. Dudley, we should return to the question of the essence of the state. Any sovereign state has two monopolies of power.

Firstly, it has the recognized and exclusive right to use force within its territory, and secondly, it has the legitimate right to levy taxes here.

Thus, the territorial boundaries of the state represent the framework within which the first of these power monopolies - the monopoly of violence - is exercised and beyond which the field of its foreign policy begins. Here the right of one state to violence ends and the right of another begins. Therefore, any event that could change what a state views as its optimal boundaries can cause a whole series of unrest and conflicts. The limits of the use of force within a state have always been determined by its ability to control its remote territories, which in turn depends on military technology. Since today the development of transport and the improvement of weapons have significantly reduced state costs of controlling territory, the optimal size of the state has also increased.

What happens to the second of these monopolies? Within a given state, the part of the total income that is withdrawn by the fiscal system constitutes the limits of the internal competence of the state, the field of its internal policy. The position of this field also depends on technology, but this time we are talking about information technology. Availability of specialized markets, expert information, higher education and medical care gives citizens advantages that they did not have in a simple village. It is because of these advantages that tax levels can rise without the risk of forcing individuals or firms to locate elsewhere. Any thoughtless expansion of this field - for example, a sudden increase in taxes beyond certain limits, which could cause confiscation of the total income of citizens, is fraught with the risk of internal conflicts in the country. From this point of view, one of the reasons for the collapse Soviet Union became its inability to generate the resources required to finance its military apparatus.

Thus, for supporters of these positions, the question of the primacy of domestic policy in relation to foreign policy or vice versa is not of fundamental importance: in their opinion, both are determined by factors of a different, primarily technological nature. Moreover, if neorealists already recognize that today the state is no longer the only participant in world politics, then, according to many representatives of the theories of interdependence and structuralism, it is increasingly losing its previously inherent main role in it. International actors such as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations, political and social movements, etc. come to the fore. The degree of influence of these new actors on world politics, the growing role of international regimes and structures are illustrated, in particular, by what is happening in it today and the components of its most characteristic feature integration processes.

Proponents of the school of transnationalism go even further in this regard. In their opinion, today the basis of world politics is no longer relations between states. Diversity of participants (intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, enterprises, social movements, various types of associations and individuals), types (cultural and scientific cooperation, economic exchanges, family relationships, professional connections) and “channels” (inter-university partnerships, denominational connections, cooperation of 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 without the participation of states). For new actors, the number of which is almost infinite, there are no national boundaries. Therefore, before our eyes, a global world is emerging, in which the division of politics into internal and external loses all meaning.

This approach was significantly influenced by the ideas put forward back in 1969 by the international relations theorist J. Rosenau about the relationship between inner life society and international relations, about the role of social, economic and cultural factors in explaining the international behavior of governments, about “external” sources that may have purely “internal”, at first glance, events, etc.

J. Rosenau was one of the first to talk about the “bifurcation” of the world: from this point of view, modernity is characterized by the coexistence, on the one hand, of the field of interstate relations, in which the “laws” of classical diplomacy and strategy operate; and, on the other hand, the fields in which “actors outside sovereignty” collide, i.e. non-state actors. Hence the “two-layer” nature of world politics: interstate relations and the interaction of non-state actors constitute two separate, relatively independent, parallel worlds of “post-international” politics.

Continuing this idea, the French political scientist B. Badie (1992) dwells on the problem of the import of Western political models by the countries of the “South” (in particular, the state as an institution of political organization of people). In a broad sense, one can state, from his point of view, a clear failure to universalize the Western model of political structure. It is in this failure that, in his opinion, lies the main source of disorder in modern international relations and the contradictory and complex processes of world reorganization observed today.

Therefore, the question of the relationship between domestic and foreign policy is a rather serious phenomenon. In the face of the loss of legitimacy of governments and the unappealing nature of the moral and ideological arguments they use to justify their actions, political leaders there is an increasing desire to give these actions not only national but also international significance.

Thus, B. Yeltsin and the political forces that acted on his side during the October events of 1993 sought to win over the public opinion of citizens not only of their country, but of the entire international community, and above all, the leading Western powers, using their existing democratic traditions, as well as fears of the global consequences of the Russian opposition’s calls for armed opposition to the regime. In turn, the opposition, regardless of the slogans it proclaimed, also sought to create a certain image of itself not only within the country, but also abroad.

Concluding the consideration of the problem of the relationship and interrelation of domestic and foreign policies, we can draw the following conclusions.

First, deterministic explanations of the relationship between domestic and foreign policy are unfruitful. Any significant events in the internal political life of a country immediately affect its international situation and demand that it take appropriate steps in the field of foreign policy.

Secondly, in modern conditions connection between internal and foreign policy becomes close, there is constant mutual interweaving and “flowing” into each other.

Thirdly, the increase in the number of actors does not mean that the state as an institution of political organization of people has already lost its role or will lose it in the foreseeable future. In turn, it follows that domestic and foreign policy remain two inextricably linked and at the same time irreducible “sides of the same coin” to each other: one of them is turned inside the state, the other - outside it.

Fourthly, the growing complexity of political situations and events results in the fact that their actions not only go beyond national boundaries, but also entail significant changes in economic, social and political relations and ideals and often do not fit into the usual ideas .

Interaction of states on the world stage, bilateral and multilateral relations between them in various areas, rivalry and conflicts, the highest form of which is war, cooperation, the range of which extends from sporadic trade exchanges to political integration, accompanied by the voluntary renunciation of part of the sovereignty transferred for “common use” - all this is reflected by the term " international politics". As for the concept of “world politics,” it shifts the emphasis precisely to the role played in the formation of the international environment by non-traditional actors who do not, however, displace the state as the main participant in international relations. Such a policy acts simultaneously as: a) “transnational ” - since it is carried out in addition to this or that state, and often in spite of it; and b) “denationalized” - since its subjects are groups of leaders whose state affiliation is, in fact, of a formal nature.

Thus, the foreign and international policies of a state are closely related not only to each other, but also to its internal politics.

Related information.

Theoretical information

The internal policy of the state is a series of measures, laws, orders, decisions, and government actions that regulate economic, cultural, and spiritual life within the state. Her department includes the development of the infrastructure of society, monitoring that all rights of citizens are strictly observed, that economic processes are stabilized, that spiritual, moral and scientific potential is growing, so that society, together with its state, is steadily moving along the path of progress.

From theory to practice

The internal policy of any country, in theory, should be aimed at improving its citizens. The USA can serve as an example of this. Their economy is the largest economy in the world, just as the same country is considered the world's largest consumer. The state and its citizens consume almost 50% of all goods, services and other things produced in the world.

The question arises: how can such needs be satisfied? What measures is the American government taking? What are the characteristics of US foreign and domestic policy?

If we mention this, her pronounced aggressive character attracts attention. It is to satisfy its internal needs that America is forced to maintain the largest and most combat-ready army in the world. US military spending is incomparable to that of any other country.

The aggressiveness of the United States is expressed in the fact that this superpower initiates armed conflicts in order to capture others, as was done in Iraq in order to get Iraqi oil. The states are organizing “color” revolutions around the world with the goal of bringing a government loyal to America to power in other countries. Recent example- invasion of Libya against all odds international law, the overthrow of the Libyan government, and all with one goal - again, to open access to oil, this time Libyan.

But America itself, in terms of natural resources far from poor. Her reserves are enviable. However, Americans treat them extremely carefully, and the country’s internal policy is aimed at preserving and increasing them. For example, mining is not carried out on the mainland, with the exception of Alaska. The American government thus ensures that future generations of citizens will have enough of their resources, while the world will become scarce.

Another wise step towards strengthening its own economy and stabilizing the lives of the population can be considered the fact that the American government managed to force the rest of the world to work for American dollars. In other words, oil and gas for the United States are not worth more expensive than the cost paper and paint that were used to print their currency, which became the equivalent of the world banknote...

Naturally, the American population is protected by such wise internal policies of its leadership. The most important thing is that it doesn’t matter at all who becomes the next president in the country. In any case, he, the Senate and Congress will think about the good of the American people.

What do we have?

The internal policy of the Russian Federation is structured completely differently. She is unique in that Russian citizen economically he feels like a foreigner in his own country. Considering that the main and only owner of all natural resources is the people, then, according to any healthy logic, every Russian should receive a return from, for example, the country’s oil and gas windfalls. But the oligarchic system led by President Putin is pursuing a completely different policy. And one of her negative manifestations became the principle of equal profitability in relation to the activities of the same Gazprom. The essence of this principle is this: no matter where and to whom gas is sold - to Germany, Ukraine or to Smolensk, Kursk, Vologda and other regions - the profitability from sales should be the same. Those. Russian citizens are not only excluded from receiving returns from the export of Russian wealth, but are also placed in a position equal to foreign buyers.

Let's go further. Every year, all tariffs for housing and communal services are growing rapidly. They are raised by private management companies, on which all residents of the country are made dependent. Only this year some exceptions were made, and at Putin’s command prices did not jump up. This is due to the fact that parliamentary elections took place in December, and presidential elections were expected in March. As soon as the elections were over, a rapid increase in tariffs began on July 1st. Now there is an intention to raise them again, in the fall, without even waiting for the next new year.

Summary

What does this internal policy of the Russian Federation, pursued by its leadership, mean? It seems that the people at the helm of power do not consider this country their Motherland. Their children study and live in the West, their money is in Western banks and works for the economies of other countries. The officials themselves, having retired, also rarely stay in their native lands. Russia for them is nothing more than a means for personal enrichment, and Russian people- nothing more than the electorate, and it needs to be cajoled a little before the elections. On the one hand, one can only sympathize with the citizens, and on the other, one must never forget that every nation has the government it deserves. The Russian government was elected by the very people who do not consider it necessary to go to elections, are not interested in politics, sincerely believing that their 1 vote will not solve anything. And as long as this state of affairs, this level of consciousness continues, Russians will never live like Americans. Moreover, the Americans have a clear understanding that they hired the president, the governor, the Senate and the Congress, that their money - taxpayers' money - goes to cover the presidential expenses and the bureaucracy. And therefore, even if something goes wrong, they defend their rights. This is called a developed civil society. Russians look at the president as a father-tsar, a benefactor, and at deputies as celestial beings. Naturally, with such a mentality one cannot count on a different life. And the state’s internal policy will not change its course.

FOREIGN POLICY - the activities of the state in the international arena,

regulating relations with other subjects of foreign policy

activities: states, foreign parties and other public

organizations, world and regional international organizations.

V.p. relies on economic, demographic, military, scientific

technical and cultural potential of the state; combination of the latter

determines the capabilities of V.p. activities of the state on certain

directions, hierarchy of priorities in the formulation and implementation of V.p. goals.

The form of traditional implementation of V.p. is to establish

diplomatic relations (or reduction in their level, suspension, rupture and

even a declaration of war when relations with former partners worsen) between

states; opening of state representations at global and

regional international organizations or state membership in them;

Domestic policy is a set of activities of the state, its structures and institutions for the organizational, concrete and meaningful expression of the interests of the people in order to create conditions for normal human life; maintaining or reforming the existing social and government system.

Domestic policy is based on real human interests, fundamental constitutional principles:

▪ the exercise of human rights and freedoms should not violate the rights and freedoms of others;

▪ the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable;

▪ everyone is equal before the law and court;

▪ the state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership of public associations, as well as other circumstances;

▪ personal dignity is protected by the state;

▪ citizens have the right to participate in the management of state affairs, both directly and through their representatives;

▪ elect and be elected to government bodies and local government, participate in a referendum, etc.

18. Constitutional and legal regulation of religious relations and the status of churches.

In democratic regimes, constitutions proclaim ideological pluralism, freedom of belief and expression (Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, etc.). In accordance with the International Covenants on Human Rights, the law prohibits only calls for violence, terror, racial and national hatred. Some prohibitions are related to the moral values ​​of society (for example, limiting or completely banning pornographic publications in a number of countries), with the need to protect public health (for example, banning or limiting the promotion of alcohol or tobacco products).

In a group of countries, there is an officially recognized ideology (for example, Rukunegaru in Malaysia, Pancha Power in Indonesia), but it is not enforced and evasion does not entail punishment. However, significant advantages are created for its promotion. The same can be said about Islam, the ideas of “Arab socialism”, and the caliphate in a number of Muslim countries. For non-believers, these views are not obligatory, but for Muslims they represent part of the Sharia, and in those countries where the canons of Islam are most zealously observed, the expression of other views can even lead to punishment, including from the special morality police (mutawas) .

Finally, in countries with totalitarian political systems, there is, as already mentioned, a virtually or even formally obligatory ideology. Speeches criticizing Marxism-Leninism, Maoism (in China), the Juche ideas, the works of Kim Il Sung in North Korea etc. entailed punishment.

Each of the directions (traditionalism, political idealism, Marxism - and such modern varieties as neorealism and neo-Marxism, theories of dependence and interdependence, structuralism and transnationalism) proceeds in its interpretation of the problem under consideration from its own ideas about the sources and driving forces of politics. So, for example, for supporters of political realism, foreign and domestic policies, although they have a single essence - which, in their opinion, ultimately comes down to a struggle for power - nevertheless constitute fundamentally different spheres of state activity. According to G. Morgenthau, many of whose theoretical positions remain popular today, foreign policy is determined by national interests. National interests are objective, since they are associated with unchanging human nature, geographical conditions, sociocultural and historical traditions of the people. They have two components: one constant - this is the imperative of survival, the immutable law of nature; another variable, which is the specific form that these interests take in time and space. The definition of this form belongs to the state, which has a monopoly on communication with the outside world. The basis of national interest, reflecting the language of the people, their culture, the natural conditions of their existence, etc., remains constant. Therefore, the internal factors of a country’s life (political regime, public opinion, etc.), which can and do change depending on various circumstances, are not considered by realists as capable of influencing the nature of national interest: in particular, national interest is not related to the nature of the political mode. Accordingly, domestic and foreign policy have significant autonomy in relation to each other.

From the point of view of representatives of a number of other theoretical directions and schools, domestic and foreign policies are not only related to each other, but this connection is of a deterministic nature. There are two versions of this determinism. One of them is characteristic of orthodox Marxism, from the standpoint of which foreign policy is a reflection of the class essence of the internal political regime and ultimately depends on the economic relations of society that determine this essence. Hence, international relations as a whole are of a “secondary” and “tertiary”, “transferred” nature. Another version of determinism is adhered to by supporters of geopolitical concepts, the theory of the “rich North” and the “poor South,” as well as neo-Marxist theories of dependence, “world center” and “world periphery,” etc. For them, in fact, the exclusive source of domestic politics is external coercion. So, for example, from the point of view of I. Wallerstein, in order to understand the internal contradictions and political struggle in a particular state, it must be considered in a broader context: the context of the integrity of the world, which is a global empire, which is based on the laws of capitalist mode of production - "world-economy". The “center of the empire” is a small group of economically developed states, consuming the resources of the “world periphery”, and is a producer of industrial products and consumer goods necessary for the existence of the underdeveloped countries that comprise it. Thus, we are talking about the existence of relations of asymmetrical interdependence between the “center” and the “periphery,” which is the main field of their foreign policy struggle. Developed countries are interested in maintaining this state (which, in essence, is a state of dependence), while the countries of the “periphery,” on the contrary, strive to change it and establish a new world economic order. Ultimately, the main interests of both lie in the sphere of foreign policy, on the success of which their internal well-being depends. The significance of internal political processes, the struggle of parties and movements within a particular country, is determined by the role that they are able to play in the context of the “world-economy”.

Another version of determinism is characteristic of representatives of such theoretical trends in international political theory as neorealism and structuralism (acquiring relatively independent significance). For them, foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, and international relations are a continuation of intra-society relations. However, in their opinion, the decisive role in determining foreign policy is played not by national interests, but by the internal dynamics of the international system. At the same time, the changing structure of the international system is of main importance: being ultimately an indirect result of the behavior of states, as well as a consequence of their very nature and the relations established between them, it at the same time dictates its laws to them. Thus, the issue of determinism in the interaction of the state’s domestic and foreign policies is ultimately resolved in favor of foreign policy

Concluding our consideration of the problem of the relationship between domestic and foreign policy, we can draw the following conclusions.

First, deterministic explanations of the relationship between domestic and foreign policy are unfruitful. Each of them - whether we are talking about the “primacy” of domestic policy in relation to foreign policy or vice versa - reflects only part of the truth and therefore cannot claim universality.

Secondly, in modern conditions, this connection becomes so close that sometimes the very use of the terms “domestic” and “foreign policy” loses its meaning, leaving the possibility of ideas about the existence of two separate areas, between which there are impassable borders, while in In reality, we are talking about their constant mutual interweaving and “flowing” into each other.

Thirdly, the growth in the number of actors “outside sovereignty” does not mean that the state as an institution of political organization of people has already lost its role or will lose it in the foreseeable future. In turn, it follows that domestic and foreign policy remain two inextricably linked and at the same time irreducible “sides of the same coin” to each other: one of them is turned inside the state, the other - outside it.