History of international relations and foreign policy. Torkunov A. Modern international relations Qualitative parameters of the new system of international relations

Plan:

1. The evolution of the system of international relations.

2. The Middle East and the religious factor in the modern system of international relations.

3. Integration and international organizations in the system of international relations.

4. Legislative acts of world and regional significance.

5. Features of the modern international system and Russia's place in it.

After the Second World War, as we already know, a bipolar system international relations. In it, the USA and the USSR acted as two superpowers. Between them - ideological, political, military, economic confrontation and rivalry, which are called "cold war". However, the situation began to change with perestroika in the USSR.

Perestroika in the USSR had a significant impact on international relations. The head of the USSR M. Gorbachev put forward the idea of ​​a new political thinking. He stated that the main problem is the survival of mankind. According to Gorbachev, all foreign policy activity should be subordinated to its solution. The decisive role was played by the top-level talks between M. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, and then George W. Bush Sr. They led to the signing of bilateral negotiations on the elimination of intermediate and shorter range missiles in 1987 year and on the Limitation and Reduction of Offensive Arms (START-1) in 1991. Contributed to the normalization of international relations and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan to 1989 year.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued its pro-Western, pro-American policy. A number of treaties on further disarmament and cooperation were concluded. These treaties include START-2, concluded in 1993 year. The consequences of such a policy are to reduce the threat of a new war with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The collapse of the USSR in 1991, which was a natural result of perestroika, the “velvet” revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989-1991, followed by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the CMEA, and the socialist camp, contributed to the transformation of the international system. From bipolar, it turned into a unipolar, Where leading role USA played. The Americans, having turned out to be the only superpower, set out to build up their weapons, including the latest, and also promoted the expansion of NATO to the East. IN 2001 The United States withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty. IN 2007 The Americans announced the deployment of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, next to the Russian Federation. The US has taken a course to support M. Saakashvili's regime in Georgia. IN 2008 Georgia, with the military-political, economic support of the United States, attacked South Ossetia, attacking Russian peacekeepers, which grossly contradicts the norms of international law. The aggression was repelled by Russian troops and local militias.

Serious changes took place in Europe at the turn of the 80-90s of the twentieth century . Germany unified in 1990. IN In 1991, the CMEA and the Department of Internal Affairs were liquidated. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. In 2004 - Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. In 2009 - Albania, Croatia. The expansion of NATO to the East, which cannot but disturb the Russian Federation, has taken place.

In the face of reduced threat global war local conflicts intensified in Europe and the post-Soviet space. There were armed conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in Transnistria, Tajikistan, Georgia, in the North Caucasus. Particularly bloody were the political conflicts in Yugoslavia. They are characterized by mass ethnic cleansing, flows of refugees. In 1999 NATO at the head of the United States, without UN sanction, he committed open aggression against Yugoslavia, starting the bombing of this country. In 2011 NATO countries attacked Libya, overthrowing the political regime of Muammar Gaddafi. At the same time, the head of Libya was physically destroyed.

Another hotbed of tension continues to exist in the Middle East. Troubled region is Iraq. The relationship between India and Pakistan. In Africa, interstate and civil wars periodically flare up, accompanied by mass extermination of the population. Tensions persist in some regions former USSR. Apart from South Ossetia And Abkhazia, there are other unrecognized republics here - Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh.

11.09.2001 in the USA- tragedy. Americans have become the object of aggression. IN 2001 The United States has declared the fight against terrorism to be its main goal. Under this pretext, the Americans invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime was overthrown with the help of local forces. This led to a multifold increase in the drug trade. In Afghanistan itself fighting between the Taliban and the occupying forces are intensifying. The role and authority of the UN has diminished. The UN has not been able to resist American aggression.

However, it is clear that the United States is experiencing many problems that undermine its geopolitical power. The economic crisis of 2008, which began in the United States, testifies to this. Americans alone cannot solve global problems. In addition, the Americans themselves in 2013 were once again on the brink of default. Many domestic and foreign researchers speak about the problems of the American financial system. Under these conditions, alternative forces appeared, which in the future may act as new geopolitical leaders. These include the European Union, China, India. They, like the Russian Federation, oppose the unipolar international political system.

However, the transformation of the international political system from unipolar to multipolar is hindered various factors. Among them are socio-economic problems and disagreements between the EU member states. China, India, despite economic growth, still remain "countries of contrasts". The low standard of living of the population, the socio-economic problems of these countries do not allow them to become full-fledged competitors to the United States. This also applies to modern Russia.

Let's summarize. At the turn of the century, the evolution of the system of international relations from bipolar to unipolar, and then to multipolar is observed.

Nowadays big influence on the development of the system of modern international relations has religious factor, especially Islam. According to religious scholars, Islam is the strongest and most viable religion of our time. No other religion has so many believers who were devoted to their religion. Islam is felt by them as the basis of life. The simplicity and consistency of the foundations of this religion, its ability to give believers a holistic and understandable picture of the world, society and the structure of the universe - all this makes Islam attractive to many.

However, the ever-growing threat from Islam is forcing more and more people to look at Muslims with distrust. At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, the socio-political activity of Islamists began to grow on the wave of disappointment in the ideas of secular nationalism. Islam has gone on the offensive. Islamization captured education system, political life, culture, life. Separate currents of Islam at the turn of the century closely merged with terrorism.

Modern terrorism has become a danger to the whole world. Since the 80s of the twentieth century, Islamic paramilitary terrorist groups have been developing great activity in the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah. Their interference in the political processes in the Middle East is enormous. The Arab Spring is clearly taking place under Islamic banners.

The challenge of Islam is realized in the form of processes that researchers classify in different ways. Some consider the Islamic challenge as a consequence of civilizational confrontation (the concept of S. Huntington). Others focus on economic interests behind the activation of the Islamic factor. For example, the countries of the Middle East are rich in oil. The starting point of the third approach is the analysis geopolitical factors. It is assumed that there is certain political forces that use such movements and organizations for their own purposes. Fourth says that activation of the religious factor is a form of national liberation struggle.

The countries of the Islamic world for a long time existed on the sidelines of rapidly developing capitalism. Everything changed in the second half of the twentieth century, after decolonization, which took place under the sign of the return of independence to the oppressed countries. In this situation, when the whole world of Islam turned into a mosaic of different countries and states, a rapid revival of Islam began. But in many Muslim countries no stability. Therefore, it is very difficult to overcome economic and technological backwardness. Situation exacerbated by globalization. Under these conditions, Islam becomes a tool in the hands of fanatics.

However, Islam is not the only religion that influences the modern system of international relations. Christianity also acts as a geopolitical factor. Let's remember the impact the ethics of Protestantism on the development of capitalist relations. This relationship was well revealed by the German philosopher, sociologist, political scientist M. Weber. Catholic Church, for example, influenced the political processes that took place in Poland during the Velvet Revolution. She managed to maintain moral authority in an authoritarian political regime and influence the change political power adopted civilizational forms so that different political forces would come to a consensus.

Thus, the role of the religious factor in modern international relations at the turn of the century is increasing. The fact that it often acquires non-civilizational forms and is associated with terrorism and political extremism gives alarm.

The religious factor in the form of Islam manifested itself most clearly in the countries of the Middle East. It is in the Middle East that Islamist oraginizations are raising their heads. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, for example. They set themselves the goal of Islamizing the entire region.

The Middle East is the name of a region located in Western Asia and North Africa. The main population of the region: Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis. The states of the Middle East are: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. In the twentieth century, the Middle East has become an arena of political conflicts, a center of increased attention from political scientists, historians, and philosophers.

Not the last role was played in this by the events in the Middle East, known as the "Arab Spring". The Arab Spring is a revolutionary wave of protests that began in the Arab world on December 18, 2010 and continues to this day. The Arab Spring affected such countries as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Iraq.

The Arab Spring began with protests in Tunisia on December 18, 2010, when Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest against corruption and police brutality. To date, the “Arab Spring” has led to the fact that several heads of state have been overthrown in a revolutionary form: Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ali, Mubarak, and then Mirsi in Egypt, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. He was overthrown on 08/23/2011 and then killed.

Still ongoing in the Middle East Arab-Israeli conflict which has its own backstory . In November 1947, the UN decided to create two states on the territory of Palestine: an Arab and a Jewish one.. Jerusalem stood out as an independent unit. May 1948 The State of Israel was proclaimed and the first Arab-Israeli war began. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq led troops to Palestine. War is over in 1949 year. Israel occupied more than half of the territory intended for the Arab state, as well as the western part of Jerusalem. So, the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-1949. ended with the defeat of the Arabs.

In June 1967 Israel launched military operations against the Arab states in response to the activities PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat, founded in 1964 year with the aim of fighting for the formation of an Arab state in Palestine and the liquidation of Israel. Israeli troops advanced inland against Egypt, Syria, Jordan. However, the protests of the world community against aggression, which the USSR joined, forced Israel to stop the offensive. During the six-day war, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the eastern part of Jerusalem.

In 1973 A new Arab-Israeli war began. Egypt managed to free part of the Sinai Peninsula. In 1970 and 1982 - 1991 gg. Israeli troops invaded Lebanese territory to fight Palestinian refugees. Part of Lebanese territory came under Israeli control. Only at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Israeli troops left Lebanon.

All attempts by the UN and the leading world powers to achieve an end to the conflict have not been successful. Since 1987 in the occupied territories of Palestine began intifada - Palestinian uprising. In the mid 90s. an agreement was reached between the leaders of Israel and the PLO on the creation of autonomy in Palestine. But the Palestinian Authority was completely dependent on Israel, and Jewish settlements remained on its territory. The situation escalated in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, when second intifada. Israel was forced to withdraw its troops and migrants from the Gaza Strip. Mutual shelling of the territory of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, terrorist acts continued. On November 11, 2004, Y. Arafat died. In the summer of 2006, there was a war between Israel and the Hezbolah organization in Lebanon. In late 2008 - early 2009, Israeli troops attacked the Gaza Strip. Armed actions led to the death of hundreds of Palestinians.

In conclusion, we note that the Arab-Israeli conflict is far from its end: in addition to the mutual territorial claims of the conflicting parties, there is a religious and ideological confrontation between them. If the Arabs consider the Koran as a world constitution, then the Jews are about the triumph of the Torah. If Muslims dream of recreating the Arab caliphate, then the Jews dream of creating a "Great Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates.

For modern system international relations is characterized not only by globalization, but also by integration. Integration, in particular, manifested itself in the fact that: 1) in 1991 was established CIS- a union of independent states, uniting the former republics of the USSR; 2) LAS- League of Arab States. This is an international organization that unites not only the Arab states, but also those that are friendly to the Arab countries. Created in 1945. The supreme body is the Council of the League. The Arab League includes 19 Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Among them: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Somalia. Headquarters - Cairo. The LAS is engaged in political integration. In Cairo, on December 27, 2005, the first session of the Arab Parliament was held, the headquarters of which is in Damascus. In 2008, the Arab Charter on Human Rights came into force, which differs significantly from European legislation. The charter is based on Islam. It equates Zionism with racism and allows the death penalty for minors. LAS is headed by the General Secretary. From 2001 to 2011 he was Aler Musa, and since 2011 - Nabil al-Arabi; 3) EU- European Union. The EU is legally anchored by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The single currency is the euro. The most important EU institutions are: the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Parliament. The existence of such institutions suggests that the EU is striving not only for political but also for economic integration.

Integration and institutionalization of international relations is manifested in the existence of international organizations. Let us give a brief description of international organizations and their areas of activity.

International relations, like any social relations, need pro-law regulation. Therefore, a whole branch of law appeared - international law dealing with the regulation of relations between countries.

Principles and norms relating to the field of human rights have been developed and adopted both in domestic law and in international law. Historically, the norms governing the activities of states during armed conflicts were originally formed. Unlike international conventions aimed at limiting the brutality of war and ensuring humanitarian standards for prisoners of war, wounded, combatants, civilian population, principles and norms concerning human rights in the world began to take shape only at the beginning of the twentieth century. International agreements in the field of human rights are divided into the following groups. The first group includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenants on Human Rights. The second group includes international conventions on the protection of human rights during armed conflicts. These include the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, Additional Protocols to them adopted in 1977. The third group consists of documents that regulate liability for violation of human rights in peacetime and during armed conflicts: sentences of the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg, Tokyo, international convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1973, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998

The development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took place in a sharp diplomatic struggle between Western countries and the USSR. When developing the Declaration, Western countries relied on the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789, the US Constitution of 1787. The USSR insisted that the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 be taken as the basis for the development of the Universal Declaration. The Soviet delegation also advocated the inclusion of social and economic rights , as well as the articles of the Soviet Constitution, which proclaimed the right of every nation to self-determination. Fundamental differences were also found in ideological approaches. Nevertheless, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, after a long discussion, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in the form of its resolution on December 10, 1948. Therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, containing a list of his various freedoms, is advisory in nature. However, this fact does not diminish the significance of the adoption of the Declaration: 90 national constitutions, including the Constitution of the Russian Federation, contain a list of fundamental rights that reproduce the provisions of this international legal source. If we compare the content of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which refers to the numerous rights of a person, person, citizen, and their legal statuses, one might think that the Russian constitution was written "under carbon copy".

Date of adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 10.12.1948 celebrated as International Human Rights Day. Declaration translated from Latin means a statement. A declaration is an official proclaimed by the state of the basic principles that are advisory in nature. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. It is proclaimed that every person has the right to life, liberty and security of person. The provision on the presumption of innocence is also included: a person accused of a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in judicial order. Each person is also guaranteed freedom of thought, receiving and disseminating information.

By adopting the Universal Declaration, the General Assembly instructed the Commission on Human Rights, through the Economic and Social Council, to develop a single package covering a wide range of fundamental rights and freedoms. In 1951, the UN General Assembly, having considered at its session 18 articles of the Covenant containing civil and political rights, adopted a resolution in which it decided to include economic, social and cultural rights in the Covenant. However, the US and its allies insisted that the Pact be limited to civil and political rights. This led to the fact that in 1952 the General Assembly revised its decision and adopted a resolution on the preparation of two Covenants instead of one Covenant: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The decision of the General Assembly was contained in its resolution of February 5, 1952, No. 543. After this decision, the UN discussed certain provisions of the Covenants for many years. On December 16, 1966, they were approved. Thus, the International Covenants on Human Rights have been in preparation for over 20 years. As in the development of the Universal Declaration, in the course of their discussion, ideological differences between the USA and the USSR were clearly revealed, since these countries belonged to different socio-economic systems. In 1973 the USSR ratified both Pacts. But in practice they were not carried out. In 1991, the USSR became a party to the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, assumed obligations to comply with all international treaties of the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 speaks of the natural nature of human rights, of their inalienability from birth. From a comparative analysis of the content of legal sources, it follows that the Constitution of the Russian Federation has secured almost the entire range of human rights and freedoms contained not only in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also in both Covenants.

Let's move on to characterization. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Pact in Latin means contract, agreement. A pact is one of the names of an international treaty of great political significance.. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted in 1966. We note that economic, social and cultural rights have relatively recently begun to be proclaimed and consolidated by the legislation of various countries of the world and international documents. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a qualitative start new stage in the international legal regulation of these rights. A specific list of them in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights begins from the proclamation of the human right to work (art. 6), the right of everyone to favorable and fair working conditions (art. 7), the right to social security and social insurance (art. 9), the right of everyone to a decent standard of living (art. 11) . According to the pact, a person has the right to decent remuneration, to a fair wage, the right to strike in accordance with local legislation. The document also notes that career advancement should be regulated not by family ties, but by seniority, qualifications. The family should be under the protection and protection of the state.

It should be recalled that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1996. The Covenant contains a wide list of rights and freedoms that must be granted by each state party to all persons without any restrictions. Note that there is also a substantive relationship between the two Covenants: a number of provisions contained in the International Covenant for Civil and Political Freedoms relate to issues that are regulated by the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This is Art. 22, which provides for the right of every person to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions, art. 23-24 on the family, marriage, children, proclaiming the equality of rights and obligations of spouses. The third part of the Covenant (Articles 6-27) contains a specific list of civil and political rights that must be ensured in every state: the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery, the slave trade and forced labor, the right of everyone to liberty and security of person (arts. 6-9), the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 18), the right to non-interference in personal and family life. The pact states that all persons must be equal before the court. The significance of the Covenant lies in the fact that it enshrines the principle of modern international law, according to which fundamental rights and freedoms must be observed in any situation, including the period of military conflicts.

The international community has adopted and optional protocols. Under optional protocols in international law is understood as a kind of multilateral international treaty signed in the form of an independent document, usually in connection with the conclusion of the main treaty in the form of an annex to it. The reason for the adoption of the optional protocol was as follows. During the drafting of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the question of the procedure for handling individual complaints was discussed for a long time. Austria has proposed the establishment of a special international court for human rights within the framework of the Covenant. Not only states as subjects of international law, but also individuals, groups of persons, non-governmental organizations could initiate a case. The USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe - satellites of the USSR, opposed. As a result of the discussion of the issues, it was decided not to include in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provisions on the consideration of complaints from individuals, leaving them for a special treaty - the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly along with the Covenant on December 16, 1966. In 1989, the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted, aimed at abolishing the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol has become an integral part of the International Bill of Human Rights.

Before talking about the place and role of Russia in the modern system of international relations, we note and reveal a number of features of this system.

Modern international relations have a number of features that I would like to emphasize. First, international relations have become more complex. Reasons: a) increase in the number of states as a result of decolonization, the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and the Czech Republic. Now there are 222 states in the world, of which 43 are in Europe, 49 in Asia, 55 in Africa, 49 in America, 26 in Australia and Oceania; b) international relations began to be influenced by even more factors: the scientific and technological revolution "was not in vain" (development of information technology).

Secondly, the unevenness of the historical process continues to exist. The gap between the "South" (global village) - the underdeveloped countries and the "North" (global city) continues to widen. Economic, political development, the geopolitical landscape as a whole is still determined by the most developed states. If you look at the problem already, then in the conditions of a unipolar world - the United States.

Third, integration processes are developing in the modern system of international relations: Arab League, EU, CIS.

Fourth, in the conditions of a unipolar world, in which the levers of influence belong to the United States, there are local military conflicts undermining the authority of international organizations, and, first of all, the UN;

Fifth, international relations at the present stage are institutionalized. The institutionalization of international relations is expressed in the fact that there are international law, evolving towards humanization, as well as various international organizations. The norms of international law penetrate deeper and deeper into legislative acts of regional significance, into the constitutions of various countries.

At sixth, the role of the religious factor, especially Islam, is increasing, on the modern system of international relations. Political scientists, sociologists, religious scholars pay increased attention to the study of the "Islamic factor".

Sixth, international relations at the present stage of development subject to globalization. Globalization is a historical process of rapprochement of peoples, between which traditional boundaries are being erased.. A wide range of global processes: scientific and technical, economic, social, political - are increasingly linking countries and regions into a single world community, and national and regional economies into a single world economy in which capital easily crosses state borders. Globalization also manifests itself in democratization of political regimes. The number of countries where modern constitutional, judicial, modern constitutional systems are being introduced is growing. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, there were already 30 fully democratic states or 10% of all countries of the modern world. It should be noted that globalization processes have created problems, because they led to the breakdown of traditional socio-economic structures, they changed the usual way of life for many people. One of the main global problems- This the problem of relations "West" - "East", "North" - "South". The essence of this problem is well known: the gap in the level between rich and poor countries is constantly increasing. Remains relevant today and the most The main global problem of our time is the prevention of thermonuclear war. This is due to the fact that some countries are stubbornly striving to possess their own weapons of mass destruction. Experimental nuclear explosions were carried out by India and Pakistan, and new types of missile weapons were tested by Iran and North Korea. Syria is intensively developing its chemical weapons program. This situation makes it very likely that weapons of mass destruction will be used in local conflicts. This is evidenced by the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the fall of 2013.

Assessing the role of Russia in the system of international relations, it should be noted its ambiguity, which was well expressed by Y. Shevchuk in the song "Monocity": "they reduced the state to a candy wrapper, however, our nuclear shield survived." On the one hand, Russia has lost access to the seas, its geopolitical position has worsened. In politics, economics, and the social sphere, there are problems that prevent the Russian Federation from claiming the status of a full-fledged competitor to the United States. On the other hand, the presence of nuclear weapons and modern weapons force other countries to reckon with the Russian position. Russia has a good opportunity to assert itself as a global player. All the necessary resources for this are available. The Russian Federation is a full-fledged member of the international community: it is a member of various international organizations and participates in various meetings. Russia is integrated into various global structures. But at the same time, internal problems, the main of which is corruption, the technological backwardness associated with it, the declarative nature of democratic values, prevent the country from realizing its potential.

The role and place of Russia in the modern global world is largely determined by its geopolitical position- location, power and balance of forces in the world system of states. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 weakened the foreign policy positions of the Russian Federation. With the reduction of the economic potential, the country's defense capability suffered. Russia was pushed to the northeast, deep into the Eurasian continent, while losing half seaports, direct access to world routes in the West and South. Russian fleet lost its traditional bases in the Baltic states, a dispute arose with Ukraine about the basing of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Sevastopol. The former republics of the USSR, which became independent states, nationalized the most powerful shock military groups located on their territory.

Relations with Western countries have acquired special significance for Russia. The objective basis for the development of Russian-American relations was the mutual interest in the formation of a stable and secure system of international relations. At the end of 1991 - early. 1992 Russian President B. Yeltsin announced that nuclear missiles were no longer aimed at targets in the United States and other Western countries. The joint declaration of the two countries (Camp David, 1992) recorded the end of the Cold War and stated that the Russian Federation and the United States do not consider each other as potential adversaries. In January 1993, a new treaty on the limitation of strategic offensive arms (OSNV-2) was signed.

However, despite all assurances, The Russian leadership is faced with the problem of NATO expansion to the East. As a result, the countries of Eastern Europe joined NATO.

Russian-Japanese relations have also evolved. In 1997, the Japanese leadership actually announced a new diplomatic concept in relation to the Russian Federation. Japan stated that from now on it will separate the problem of the "northern territories" from the whole range of issues of bilateral relations. But Tokyo's nervous "diplomatic demarche" regarding the visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the Far East suggests otherwise. The problem of the "northern territories" has not been resolved, which does not contribute to the normalization of Russian-Japanese relations.

International relationships- a set of political, economic, ideological, legal, diplomatic and other ties and relationships between states and systems of states, between the main classes, the main social, economic, political forces, organizations and social movements operating on the world stage, that is, between peoples in the the broadest sense of the word.

Historically, international relations took shape and developed as relations, first of all, interstate ones; the emergence of the phenomenon of international relations is associated with the emergence of the institution of the state, and the change in their nature at different stages of historical development was largely determined by the evolution of the state.

A systematic approach to the study of international relations

Modern science is characterized by the study of international relations as an integral system functioning according to its own laws. The advantages of this approach are that it allows a deeper analysis of the motivation of the behavior of countries or military-political blocs, revealing the proportion of certain factors that determine their actions, exploring the mechanism that determines the dynamics of the world community as a whole, and, ideally, predicting its development. Consistency in relation to international relations means such a nature of long-term relationships between states or groups of states, which is distinguished by stability and interdependence, these relations are based on the desire to achieve a certain, conscious set of sustainable goals, they to some extent contain elements of legal regulation of basic aspects international activities.

Formation of the system of international relations

Consistency in international relations is a historical concept. It is formed in the early modern period, when international relations acquire qualitatively new features that determined their subsequent development. The conditional date for the formation of the system of international relations is considered to be 1648 - the time of the end of the Thirty Years' War and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia. The most important condition for the emergence of systemicity was the formation of nation-states with relatively stable interests and goals. The economic foundation of this process was the development of bourgeois relations, the ideological and political side was greatly influenced by the Reformation, which undermined the Catholic unity of the European world and contributed to the political and cultural isolation of states. Within the states, there was a process of strengthening centralization tendencies and overcoming feudal separatism, which resulted in the ability to develop and implement a consistent foreign policy. In parallel, on the basis of the development of commodity-money relations and the growth of world trade, a system of world economic relations was born, into which more and more vast territories were gradually drawn in and within which a certain hierarchy was built.

Periodization of the history of international relations in modern and modern times

In the course of the development of the system of international relations in modern and recent times, a number of major stages are distinguished, which differed significantly from each other in their internal content, structure, nature of the relationship between the constituent elements, and the dominant set of values. Based on these criteria, it is customary to single out the Westphalian (1648-1789), Vienna (1815-1914), Versailles-Washington (1919-1939), Yalta-Potsdam (bipolar) (1945-1991) and post-bipolar models of international relations. Each of the successively replacing each other models passed through several phases in its development: from the phase of formation to the phase of disintegration. Until the Second World War, inclusive, the starting point of the next cycle in the evolution of the system of international relations was major military conflicts, during which a radical regrouping of forces was carried out, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries changed, and a serious redrawing of borders took place. Thus, the old pre-war contradictions were eliminated, the way was cleared for a new round of development.

Characteristic features of international relations and foreign policy of states in modern times

From the point of view of the history of international relations, European states were of decisive importance in modern times. In the “European era”, which lasted until the twentieth century, it was they who acted as the main dynamic force, in all more influencing the appearance of the rest of the world through the expansion and spread of European civilization, a process that began as early as the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries of the late 15th century.

In the XVI - XVII centuries. ideas about the medieval world order, when Europe was perceived as a kind of Christian unity under the spiritual leadership of the pope and with a universalist tendency towards political unification, which was to be headed by the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, have finally gone into the past. The Reformation and religious wars put an end to spiritual unity, and the formation of a new statehood and the collapse of the empire of Charles V as the last universalist attempt put an end to political unity. From now on, Europe became not so much a unity as a multitude. During the Thirty Years' War 1618-1648. the secularization of international relations was finally established as one of their most important characteristics in modern times. If earlier foreign policy was largely determined by religious motives, then with the beginning of the new time, the principle of state interests became the main motive for the actions of an individual state, which is understood as such a set of long-term program-targeted installations of the state (military, economic, propaganda, etc.), the implementation of which would guarantee that country the preservation of sovereignty and security. Along with secularization, another important feature of international relations in modern times was the process of monopolization of foreign policy by the state, while individual feudal lords, merchant corporations, church organizations gradually left the European political scene. The conduct of foreign policy required the creation of a regular army to protect the interests of the state outside and a bureaucracy designed to more effectively manage inside. There was a separation of foreign departments from other government bodies, there was a process of complication and differentiation of their structure. The main role in making foreign policy decisions was played by the monarch, in whose figure the absolutist state of the 17th - 18th centuries was personified. It is he who is perceived as the source and bearer of sovereignty.

The state also takes control of one of the most common means of conducting foreign policy in modern times - war. In the Middle Ages, the concept of war was ambiguous and vague, it could be used to refer to various kinds of internal conflicts, various feudal groups had the “right to war”. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. all rights to the use of armed force pass into the hands of the state, and the very concept of "war" is used almost exclusively to refer to interstate conflicts. At the same time, war was recognized as a completely normal natural means of conducting politics. The threshold separating peace from war was extremely low; statistics testify to the constant readiness to break it - two peaceful years in the 17th century, sixteen years in the 18th century. The main type of war in the 17th - 18th centuries. - this is the so-called "cabinet war", i.e. a war between sovereigns and their armies, which had as its goal the acquisition of specific territories with a conscious desire to preserve the population and material values. The most common type of war for absolutist dynastic Europe was the war of inheritance - Spanish, Austrian, Polish. On the one hand, these wars were about the prestige of individual dynasties and their representatives, about issues of rank and hierarchy; on the other hand, dynastic problems often acted as a convenient legal justification for achieving economic, political, and strategic interests. The second important type of wars was trade and colonial wars, the emergence of which was associated with the rapid development of capitalism and intense trade competition between the European powers. An example of such conflicts are the Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-French wars.

The absence of external restrictions on the activities of states, constant wars required the development of norms for interstate relations. One of the proposed options was an international organization or federation, designed to resolve disputes through diplomacy and apply collective sanctions to violators of the general will. The idea of ​​"eternal peace" has taken a firm position in social thought and has undergone a certain evolution from an appeal to the mind of sovereigns through the demand for a change in the political system of individual states to the proclamation of the inevitability of the onset of eternal peace in a separated future. Another common concept was the "balance of power" or "political equilibrium". In political practice, this concept became a reaction to the attempts of the Habsburgs and then the Bourbons to establish dominance in Europe. Equilibrium was understood as a means to ensure the peace and security of all participants in the system. The task of laying a legal basis for the relations of states was answered by the appearance of the works of G. Grotius, S. Puffendorf on the problems of international law. A significant contribution to the works on the history of international relations was made by the researchers Thomas Hobbes, Niccollo Machiavelli, David Hume, Karl Haushofer, Robert Schumann, Francis Fukuyama and others.

Features of the development of international relations in the XIX century. stemmed mainly from the fact that at that time fundamental changes were taking place in the life of Western society and the state. The so-called "double revolution" of the late 18th century, i.e. The industrial revolution that began in England and the French Revolution became the starting point for the process of modernization that took place over the next century, during which the modern mass industrial civilization replaced the traditional class-based agrarian society. The main subject of international relations is still the state, although it was in the XIX century. non-state participants in international relations - national and pacifist movements, various political associations - begin to play a certain role. If with the process of secularization the state lost its traditional support in the face of divine sanction, then in the era of democratization that began, it gradually lost its centuries-old dynastic background. In the sphere of international relations, this was most clearly manifested in the complete disappearance of the phenomenon of wars of succession, and at the diplomatic level, in the gradual diminishing of questions of primacy and rank, so characteristic of the Old Order. Having lost the old pillars, the state was in dire need of new ones. As a result, the crisis of legitimization of political domination was overcome by referring to a new authority - the nation. The French Revolution put forward the idea of ​​popular sovereignty and considered the nation as its source and bearer. However, until the middle of the XIX century. - the state and the nation acted rather as antipodes. The monarchs fought against the national idea as against the legacy of the French Revolution, while the liberal and democratic forces demanded their participation in political life precisely on the basis of the idea of ​​the nation as a politically self-governing people. The situation changed under the influence of cardinal shifts in the economy and social structure society: suffrage reforms gradually admitted to political life more and more sections, and the state began to draw its legitimacy from the nation. Moreover, if initially the national idea was used by political elites mainly instrumentally as a means of mobilizing support for their policies dictated by rational interests, then gradually it turned into one of the leading forces that determined the policy of the state.

Huge influence on the foreign policy of states and international relations in the XIX century. caused the industrial revolution. It manifested itself in the increased interdependence between economic and political power. The economy to a much greater extent began to determine the goals of foreign policy, provided new means to achieve these goals, and gave rise to new conflicts. The revolution in the field of communications led to the overcoming of the “secular hostility of space”, became a condition for expanding the boundaries of the system, the “first globalization”. Coupled with rapid technological advances in the development of great power weapons, it also gave a new quality to colonial expansion.

The 19th century went down in history as the most peaceful century of modern times. The architects of the Vienna system consciously sought to design mechanisms designed to prevent big war. The theory and practice of the “European concert” that developed at that time marked a step towards international relations consciously managed on the basis of agreed norms. However, the period 1815 - 1914. was not so homogeneous, different tendencies were hidden behind external peacefulness, peace and war went hand in hand with each other. As before, war was understood as a natural means by which the state pursued its foreign policy interests. At the same time, the processes of industrialization, the democratization of society, and the development of nationalism gave it a new character. With the introduction almost everywhere in the 1860-70s. universal military service began to blur the line between the army and society. Two circumstances followed from this - firstly, the impossibility of waging war in spite of public opinion and, accordingly, the need for its propaganda training, and secondly, the tendency for the war to acquire a total character. Distinctive features of total war is the use of all types and means of struggle - armed, economic, ideological; unlimited goals, up to the complete moral and physical destruction of the enemy; erasing the boundaries between the military and civilian population, state and society, public and private, mobilizing all the resources of the country to fight the enemy. The war of 1914 - 1918, which brought the Vienna system to collapse, was not only the First World War, but also the first total war.

Features of the development of international relations and foreign policy of states in modern times

First World War became a reflection of the crisis of the traditional bourgeois society, its accelerator and stimulator, and at the same time a form of transition from one model of the organization of the world community to another. The international legal formalization of the results of the First World War and the new alignment of forces that developed after its end was Versailles-Washington model international relations. It was formed as the first global system - the United States and Japan entered the club of great powers. However, the architects of the Versailles-Washington system failed to create a stable balance based on the balance of interests of the great powers. Not only did it not eliminate traditional contradictions, but it also contributed to the emergence of new international conflicts.

Fig.1. Map "Global Peace index".

The main thing was the confrontation between the victorious powers and the defeated states. The conflict between the allied powers and Germany was the most important contradiction of the interwar period, which eventually resulted in a struggle for a new redivision of the world. The contradictions between the victorious powers themselves did not contribute to the implementation of a coordinated policy by them and predetermined the inefficiency of the first international peacekeeping organization - League of Nations. An organic defect of the Versailles system was ignoring the interests of Soviet Russia. In international relations, a fundamentally new one has arisen - an inter-formational, ideological-class conflict. The emergence of another group of contradictions - between small European countries - was associated with the solution of territorial and political issues, which took into account not so much their interests as the strategic considerations of the victorious powers. A purely conservative approach to solving colonial problems exacerbated relations between the metropolitan powers and the colonies. The growing national liberation movement became one of the most important indicators of the instability and fragility of the Versailles-Washington system. Despite its instability, the Versailles-Washington model cannot be characterized only in a negative way. Along with conservative, imperialist tendencies, it contained democratic, just principles. They were due to cardinal changes in the post-war world: the rise of the revolutionary and national liberation movements, the wide spread of pacifist sentiments, as well as the desire of a number of leaders of the victorious powers to give the new world order a more liberal look. Decisions such as the establishment of the League of Nations, the declaration of the independence and territorial integrity of China, and the limitation and reduction of armaments were based on these principles. However, they could not cross out the destructive tendencies in the development of the system, which were especially clearly manifested in the wake of the great economic crisis of 1929-1933. The coming to power in a number of states (primarily in Germany) of forces aimed at breaking up the existing system became an important factor in its crisis. A theoretically possible alternative in the evolution of the Versailles-Washington system existed until the mid-1930s, after which the destructive moments in the development of this model began to fully determine the overall dynamics of the functioning of the system mechanism, which led to the development of the crisis phase into the phase of disintegration. The decisive event that determined the final fate of this system occurred in the autumn of 1938. We are talking about Munich Agreement, after which it was no longer possible to save the system from collapse.

Fig.2. Political map of Europe

The Second World War, which began on September 1, 1939, became a kind of transition from a multipolar model of international relations to a bipolar one. The main centers of power cementing the system have moved from Europe to the expanses of Eurasia (USSR) and North America (USA). Among the elements of the system, a new category of superpowers appeared, the conflict interaction of which set the vector for the development of the model. The interests of the superpowers acquired a global scope, which included almost all areas the globe, and this automatically sharply increased the field of conflict interaction and, accordingly, the likelihood of local conflicts. The ideological factor played a huge role in the development of international relations after World War II. The bipolarity of the world community was largely determined by the predominance of the postulate that supposedly there are only two alternative models of social development in the world: Soviet and American. Another important factor that influenced the functioning of the bipolar model was the creation nuclear missile weapons, which radically changed the entire system of foreign policy decision-making and radically overturned ideas about the nature of military strategy. In reality, the post-war world, for all its outward simplicity - bipolarity - turned out to be no less, and perhaps even more complex, than the multipolar models of previous years. The trend towards pluralization of international relations, their going beyond the rigid framework of bipolarity, manifested itself in the activation of the national liberation movement, which claims an independent role in world affairs, the process of Western European integration, and the slow erosion of military-political blocs.

The model of international relations that emerged as a result of the Second World War was from the very beginning more structured than its predecessors. In 1945, the UN was formed - world organization peacekeeping, which included almost all states - the constituent elements of the system of international relations. As it developed, its functions expanded and multiplied, improved organizational structure, new subsidiaries appeared. Beginning in 1949, the United States began to form a network of military-political blocs designed to create a barrier to the possible expansion of the sphere of Soviet influence. The USSR, in turn, designed structures under its control. Integration processes gave rise to a whole series of supranational structures, the leading of which was the EEC. There was a structuring of the "third world", various regional organizations arose - political, economic, military, cultural. The legal field of international relations was improved.

Features of the development of international relations at the present stage

With a sharp weakening and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, the bipolar model ceased to exist. Accordingly, this also meant a crisis in the management of the system, previously based on bloc confrontation. The global conflict between the USSR and the USA has ceased to be its organizing axis. The specifics of the situation in the 1990s 20th century consisted in the fact that the processes of formation of the new model took place simultaneously with the collapse of the structures of the old one. This has led to significant uncertainty about the contours of the future world order. Therefore, it is not surprising that a large number of various forecasts and scenarios for the future development of the system of international relations, which appeared in the literature of the 1990s. Thus, the leading American political scientists K. Waltz, J. Mersheimer, K. Lane predicted a return to multipolarity - the acquisition by Germany, Japan, possibly China and Russia of the status of centers of power. Other theorists (J. Nye, Ch. Krauthammer) called the trend of strengthening US leadership as the main one. The implementation of this trend at the turn of the XX-XXI century. gave rise to a discussion of the prospects for the establishment and stable functioning of unipolarity. It is obvious that the concept of "hegemonic stability" popular at that time in American literature, which defended the thesis of the stability of a system based on the dominance of a single superpower, was aimed at substantiating the superiority of the United States in the world. Its proponents often equate US benefits with the "common good." Therefore, it is not surprising that outside the United States, the attitude towards such a concept is predominantly skeptical. Under conditions of dominance of power politics in international relations, hegemony is a potential threat to the state interests of all countries, with the exception of the hegemon himself. It creates a situation in which the assertion of arbitrariness on the part of the only superpower on the world stage is possible. As opposed to the idea of ​​a "unipolar world", the thesis is put forward about the need to develop and strengthen a multipolar structure.

In reality, multidirectional forces operate in modern international relations: both contributing to the consolidation of the leading role of the United States, and acting in the opposite direction. The first trend is supported by the asymmetry in power in favor of the United States, the mechanisms and structures that have been created that support their leadership, primarily in the world economic system. Despite some disagreements, the leading countries of Western Europe, Japan, remain allies of the United States. At the same time, the principle of hegemony is contradicted by the factor of the growing heterogeneity of the world, in which states with different socio-economic, political, cultural and value systems coexist. At present, the project of spreading the Western model of liberal democracy, way of life, system of values ​​as general norms accepted by all or at least most of the world's states also seems utopian. Its implementation is only one of the trends in modern international relations. It is opposed by equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification along ethnic, national, and religious principles, which is expressed in the growing influence of nationalist, traditionalist, and fundamentalist ideas in the world. Islamic fundamentalism is put forward as the most influential systemic alternative to American capitalism and liberal democracy. Apart from sovereign states Transnational and supranational associations are becoming more and more active as independent players on the world stage. The consequence of the process of transnationalization of production, the emergence of a global capital market is some weakening of the regulatory role of the state in general and the United States in particular. Finally, while the dominant power clearly benefits from its position on the world stage, the global nature of its interests comes at a significant cost. Moreover, the complication of the modern system of international relations makes it practically impossible to manage it from one center. Along with the superpower, there are states in the world with global and regional interests, without whose cooperation it is impossible to solve the most acute problems of modern international relations, which include, first of all, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. The modern international system is distinguished by an enormous increase in the number of interactions between its various participants on different levels. As a result, it becomes not only more interdependent, but also mutually vulnerable, which requires the creation of new branched institutions and mechanisms to maintain stability.

Recommended reading

Introduction to the theory of international relations: Textbook / Ed. editor A.S. Manykin. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001 (Proceedings of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University: Issue 17. Ser. III. Instrumenta studiorum).

Conflicts and Crises in International Relations: Problems of Theory and History: Proceedings of the Association for the Study of the United States / Problems of American Studies Vol. 11 Rep. editor. A.S.Manykin. - M.: MAKS Press, 2001

Fundamentals of the General Theory of International Relations: Textbook / Ed. A.S. Manykin. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 2009. - 592 p.

Models of regional integration: past and present. Edited by A.S. Manykin. Tutorial. M., Ol Bee Print. 2010. 628 p.

Gorokhov V.N. History of international relations. 1918-1939: Course of lectures. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 2004. - 288 p.

Medyakov A.S. History of international relations in modern times. - M. Enlightenment, 2007. - 463 p.

Bartenev V.I. "The Libyan problem" in international relations. 1969-2008. M., URSS, 2009. - 448 p.

Pilko A.V. "Crisis of confidence" in NATO: an alliance on the verge of change (1956-1966). - M .: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 2007. - 240 p.

Romanova E.V. Road to War: The Development of the Anglo-German Conflict, 1898-1914. - M.: MAKS Press, 2008. -328 p.

The global scale and radical nature of the changes taking place in our days in the political, economic, spiritual areas of the life of the world community, in the field of military security allow us to put forward an assumption about the formation of a new system of international relations, different from those that have functioned over the past century, and in many respects even since from the classical Westphalian system.

In the world and domestic literature, a more or less stable approach to the systematization of international relations has developed, depending on their content, composition of participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that international (interstate) relations proper originated during the formation of national states in the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The end of the “Thirty Years’ War” in Europe and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is taken as a starting point. Since then, the entire 350-year period of international interaction up to the present day is considered by many, especially Western researchers, as the history of a single Westphalian system of international relations. The dominant subjects of this system are sovereign states. There is no supreme arbiter in the system, therefore the states are independent in conducting domestic policy within their national borders and are in principle equal in rights. Sovereignty implies non-interference in each other's affairs. Over time, states have developed a set of rules based on these principles that govern international relations - international law.

Most scholars agree that the main driving force behind the Westphalian system of international relations was rivalry between states: some sought to increase their influence, while others tried to prevent this. Collisions between states were determined by the fact that national interests perceived as vital by some states came into conflict with the national interests of other states. The outcome of this rivalry, as a rule, was determined by the balance of power between states or alliances that they entered to achieve their foreign policy goals. The establishment of a balance, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations, the violation of the balance of power ultimately led to war and its restoration in a new configuration, reflecting the strengthening of the influence of some states at the expense of others. For clarity and, of course, with a large degree of simplification, this system is compared with the movement of billiard balls. States collide with each other in changing configurations and then move again in an endless struggle for influence or security. The main principle in this case is self-interest. The main criterion is strength.

The Westphalian era (or system) of international relations is divided into several stages (or subsystems), united by the general patterns indicated above, but differing from each other in features characteristic of a particular period of relations between states. Historians usually distinguish several subsystems of the Westphalian system, which are often considered as independent: the system of predominantly Anglo-French rivalry in Europe and the struggle for colonies in the 17th - 18th centuries; the system of the "European concert of nations" or the Congress of Vienna in the 19th century; the more geographically global Versailles-Washington system between the two world wars; finally, the Cold War system, or, as some scholars have defined it, the Yalta-Potsdam system. Obviously, in the second half of the 80s - early 90s of the XX century. cardinal changes have taken place in international relations, which allow us to speak of the end of the Cold War and the formation of new system-forming patterns. The main question today is what are these regularities, what are the specifics of the new stage compared to the previous ones, how does it fit into the general Westphalian system or differ from it, how can a new system of international relations be defined.

Most foreign and domestic international experts take the wave of political changes in the countries of Central Europe in the autumn of 1989 as a watershed between the Cold War and the current stage of international relations, and consider the fall of the Berlin Wall as a clear symbol of it. In the titles of most monographs, articles, conferences, and training courses devoted to today's processes, the emerging system of international relations or world politics is designated as belonging to the post-cold war period. Such a definition focuses on what is missing in the current period compared to the previous one. The obvious distinguishing features of the emerging system today compared to the previous one are the removal of the political and ideological confrontation between "anti-communism" and "communism" due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the curtailment of the military confrontation of the blocs that were grouped during the Cold War around two poles - Washington and Moscow. Such a definition does not adequately reflect the new essence of world politics, just as the formula “after the Second World War” did not reveal the new quality of the emerging patterns of the Cold War in its time. Therefore, when analyzing today's international relations and trying to predict their development, one should pay attention to qualitatively new processes emerging under the influence of the changed conditions of international life.

Lately, one can hear more and more often pessimistic lamentations about the fact that the new international situation is less stable, predictable and even more dangerous than in previous decades. Indeed, the sharp contrasts of the Cold War are clearer than the multiplicity of undertones of new international relations. In addition, the Cold War is already a thing of the past, an era that has become the object of unhurried study of historians, and a new system is just emerging, and its development can only be predicted on the basis of a still small amount of information. This task becomes all the more complicated if, in analyzing the future, one proceeds from the regularities that characterized the past system. This is partly confirmed by the fact

The fact that, in essence, the entire science of international relations, operating with the methodology of explaining the Westphalian system, was unable to foresee the collapse of communism and the end of the cold war. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the change of systems does not occur instantly, but gradually, in the struggle between the new and the old. Apparently, the feeling of increased instability and danger is caused by this variability of the new, as yet incomprehensible world.

New political map of the world

In approaching the analysis of the new system of international relations, apparently, one should proceed from the fact that the end of the Cold War completed in principle the process of forming a single world community. The path traversed by humanity from the isolation of continents, regions, civilizations and peoples through the colonial gathering of the world, the expansion of the geography of trade, through the cataclysms of two world wars, the massive entry into the world arena of states liberated from colonialism, the mobilization of resources by opposite camps from all corners of the world in opposition to the Cold War, the increase in the compactness of the planet as a result of the scientific and technological revolution, finally ended with the collapse of the "iron curtain" between East and West and the transformation of the world into a single organism with a certain common set of principles and patterns of development of its individual parts. The world community is increasingly becoming such in reality. Therefore, in recent years, increased attention has been paid to the problems of interdependence and globalization of the world, the common denominator of the national components of world politics. Apparently, the analysis of these transcendent universal tendencies can make it possible to more reliably imagine the direction of change in world politics and international relations.

According to a number of scholars and politicians, the disappearance of the ideological stimulus of world politics in the form of the confrontation "communism - anti-communism" allows us to return to the traditional structure of relations between nation states, characteristic of the earlier stages of the Westphalian system. In this case, the disintegration of bipolarity presupposes the formation of a multipolar world, the poles of which should be the most powerful powers that have thrown off the restrictions of corporate discipline as a result of the disintegration of two blocs, worlds or commonwealths. The well-known scientist and former US Secretary of State H. Kissinger, in one of his last monographs Diplomacy, predicts that international relations emerging after the Cold War will increasingly resemble the European politics of the 19th century, when traditional national interests and the changing balance of power determined the diplomatic game, education and the collapse of alliances, changing spheres of influence. A full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, when he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, E. M. Primakov paid considerable attention to the phenomenon of the emergence of multipolarity. It should be noted that the supporters of the doctrine of multipolarity operate with the former categories, such as "great power", "spheres of influence", "balance of power", etc. The idea of ​​multipolarity has become one of the central ones in the programmatic party and state documents of the PRC, although the emphasis in them is rather not on an attempt to adequately reflect the essence of a new stage in international relations, but on the task of counteracting real or imaginary hegemonism, preventing the formation of a unipolar world led by the United States. states. In Western literature, and in some statements by American officials, there is often talk of "the sole leadership of the United States", i.e. about unipolarity.

Indeed, in the early 90s, if we consider the world from the point of view of geopolitics, the map of the world has undergone major changes. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance put an end to the dependence of the states of Central and Eastern Europe on Moscow, turned each of them into an independent agent of European and world politics. The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally changed the geopolitical situation in the Eurasian space. To a greater or lesser extent and at different speeds, the states formed in the post-Soviet space fill their sovereignty with real content, form their own complexes of national interests, foreign policy courses, not only theoretically, but also in essence become independent subjects of international relations. The fragmentation of the post-Soviet space into fifteen sovereign states changed the geopolitical situation for neighboring countries that previously interacted with the united Soviet Union, for example

China, Turkey, countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia. Not only have the local “balances of power” changed, but the multivariance of relations has also sharply increased. Of course, the Russian Federation remains the most powerful public education in the post-Soviet, and even in the Eurasian space. But its new, very limited compared to the former Soviet Union potential (if such a comparison is at all appropriate), in terms of territory, population, share of the economy and geopolitical neighborhood, dictates new model behavior in international affairs, if viewed from the perspective of a multipolar "balance of power".

Geopolitical changes on the European continent as a result of the unification of Germany, the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the obvious pro-Western orientation of most countries of Eastern and Central Europe, including the Baltic states, are superimposed on a certain strengthening of Eurocentrism and independence of Western European integration structures, a more prominent manifestation of sentiments in a number of European countries, not always coinciding with the US strategic line. The dynamics of China's economic growth and the increase in its foreign policy activity, Japan's search for a more independent place in world politics, befitting its economic power, are causing shifts in the geopolitical situation in the Asia-Pacific region. The objective increase in the share of the United States in world affairs after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is to some extent leveled by the increase in the independence of other "poles" and a certain strengthening of isolationist sentiments in American society.

Under the new conditions, with the end of the confrontation between the two "camps" of the Cold War, the coordinates of foreign policy activity and large group states that used to be part of the Third World. The Non-Aligned Movement has lost its former content, the stratification of the South has accelerated and the differentiation of the attitude of the groups and individual states formed as a result of this towards the North, which is also not monolithic.

Another dimension of multipolarity can be considered regionalism. For all their diversity, different rates of development and degree of integration, regional groupings introduce additional features into the change in the geopolitical map of the world. Supporters of the "civilizational" school tend to view multipolarity from the point of view of the interaction or clash of cultural and civilizational blocs. According to the most fashionable representative of this school, the American scientist S. Huntington, the ideological bipolarity of the Cold War will be replaced by a clash of multipolarity of cultural and civilizational blocs: Western - Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Confucian, Slavic-Orthodox, Hindu, Japanese, Latin American and, possibly, African. Indeed, regional processes are developing against different civilizational backgrounds. But the possibility of a fundamental division of the world community on precisely this basis at the moment seems to be very speculative and is not yet supported by any specific institutional or policy-forming realities. Even the confrontation between Islamic "fundamentalism" and Western civilization loses its sharpness over time.

More materialized is economic regionalism in the form of a highly integrated European Union, other regional formations of varying degrees of integration - the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Commonwealth of Independent States, ASEAN, the North American Free Trade Area, similar formations emerging in Latin America and South Asia. Although in a somewhat modified form, regional political institutions, such as the Organization of Latin American States, the Organization of African Unity, and so on, retain their significance. They are complemented by such interregional multifunctional structures as the North Atlantic partnership, the US-Japan linkage, the North America-Western Europe-Japan trilateral structure in the form of the G7, to which the Russian Federation is gradually joining.

In short, since the end of the Cold War, the geopolitical map of the world has undergone obvious changes. But multipolarity explains the form rather than the essence of the new system of international interaction. Does multipolarity mean the restoration in full of the action of the traditional driving forces of world politics and the motivations for the behavior of its subjects in the international arena, which are characteristic to a greater or lesser extent for all stages of the Westphalian system?

The events of recent years do not yet confirm such a logic of a multipolar world. First, the United States is behaving much more restrained than it could afford under the logic of the balance of power given its current position in the economic, technological, and military fields. Secondly, with a certain autonomization of the poles in the Western world, the emergence of new, somewhat radical dividing lines of confrontation between North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region is not visible. With some increase in the level of anti-American rhetoric in the Russian and Chinese political elites, the more fundamental interests of both powers are pushing them to further development relations with the United States. NATO expansion has not strengthened the centripetal tendencies in the CIS, which should be expected under the laws of a multipolar world. An analysis of the interaction between the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G8 shows that the field of convergence of their interests is much wider than the field of disagreement, despite the outward drama of the latter.

Based on this, it can be assumed that the behavior of the world community is beginning to be influenced by new driving forces, different from those that traditionally operated within the framework of the Westphalian system. In order to test this thesis, one should consider new factors that are beginning to influence the behavior of the world community.

Global Democratic Wave

At the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, the global socio-political space changed qualitatively. The refusal of the peoples of the Soviet Union, most other countries of the former "socialist commonwealth" from the one-party system state structure and central planning of the economy in favor of market democracy meant the cessation of the basically global confrontation between antagonistic socio-political systems and a significant increase in the share of open societies in world politics. A unique feature of the self-liquidation of communism in history is the peaceful nature of this process, which was not accompanied, as was usually the case with such a radical change in the socio-political structure, by any serious military or revolutionary cataclysms. In a significant part of the Eurasian space - in the Central and Eastern Europe, as well as on the territory of the former Soviet Union, a consensus in principle has developed in favor of a democratic form of socio-political structure. In case of successful completion of the process of reforming these states, primarily Russia (due to its potential), into open societies in most of the northern hemisphere - in Europe, North America, Eurasia - a community of peoples will be formed, living according to similar socio-political and economic principles, professing close values, including in approaches to the processes of global world politics.

A natural consequence of the end of the main confrontation between the "first" and "second" worlds was the weakening and then the cessation of support for authoritarian regimes - clients of the two camps that fought during the Cold War in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Since one of the main advantages of such regimes for East and West was, respectively, "anti-imperialist" or "anti-communist" orientation, with the end of the confrontation between the main antagonists, they lost their value as ideological allies and, as a result, lost material and political support. The fall of individual regimes of this kind in Somalia, Liberia, and Afghanistan was followed by the disintegration of these states and civil war. Most other countries, such as Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Zaire, have begun to move, albeit at different rates, away from authoritarianism. This further reduced the world field of the latter.

The 1980s, especially their second half, witnessed a large-scale process of democratization on all continents, not directly related to the end of the Cold War. Brazil, Argentina, Chile have moved from military-authoritarian to civilian parliamentary forms of government. Somewhat later, this trend spread to Central America. Indicative of the outcome of this process is that the 34 leaders who attended the December 1994 Americas Summit (Cuba did not receive an invitation) were democratically elected civilian leaders of their states. Similar processes of democratization, of course, with Asian specifics, were observed at that time in the Asia-Pacific region - in the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, and Thailand. In 1988, an elected government replaced the military regime in Pakistan. A major breakthrough towards democracy, not only for the African continent, was South Africa's rejection of the policy of apartheid. Elsewhere in Africa, the move away from authoritarianism has been slower. However, the fall of the most odious dictatorial regimes in Ethiopia, Uganda, Zaire, a certain progress in democratic reforms in Ghana, Benin, Kenya, and Zimbabwe indicate that the wave of democratization has not bypassed this continent either.

It should be noted that democracy has quite different degrees of maturity. This is evident in the evolution of democratic societies from the French and American revolutions to the present day. Primary forms of democracy in the form of regular multi-party elections, for example, in a number of African countries or in some newly independent states on the territory of the former USSR, differ significantly from the forms of mature democracies, say, of the Western European type. Even the most advanced democracies are imperfect, according to Lincoln's definition of democracy: "government by the people, elected by the people and carried out in the interests of the people." But it is also obvious that there is a line of demarcation between the varieties of democracies and authoritarianism, which determines the qualitative difference between the domestic and foreign policies of the societies located on both sides of it.

The global process of changing socio-political models took place in the late 80s and early 90s in different countries from different starting positions, had an unequal depth, its results are in some cases ambiguous, and there are not always guarantees against the recurrence of authoritarianism. But the scale of this process, its simultaneous development in a number of countries, the fact that for the first time in history the field of democracy covers more than half of humanity and the territory of the globe, and most importantly, the most powerful states in economic, scientific, technical and military terms - all this allows us to do conclusion about the qualitative change in the socio-political field of the world community. The democratic form of organization of societies does not cancel the contradictions, and sometimes even acute conflict situations between the respective states. For example, the fact that parliamentary forms of government are currently functioning in India and Pakistan, in Greece and Turkey, does not exclude dangerous tension in their relations. The significant distance traveled by Russia from communism to democracy does not cancel disagreements with European states and the United States, say, on NATO expansion or the use of military force against the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic. But the fact is that throughout history, democracies have never been at war with each other.

Much, of course, depends on the definition of the concepts of "democracy" and "war". A state is usually considered democratic if the executive and legislative powers are formed through competitive elections. This means that at least two independent parties participate in such elections, at least half of the adult population is eligible to vote, and there has been at least one peaceful constitutional transfer of power from one party to another. Unlike incidents, border clashes, crises, civil wars, international wars are military actions between states with combat losses of the armed forces over 1000 people.

Studies of all hypothetical exceptions to this pattern throughout world history from the war between Syracuse and Athens in the 5th century. BC e. up to the present time, they only confirm the fact that democracies are at war with authoritarian regimes and often start such conflicts, but they have never brought contradictions with other democratic states to war. It must be admitted that there are certain grounds for skepticism among those who point out that during the years of the existence of the Westphalian system, the field of interaction between democratic states was relatively narrow and their peaceful interaction was influenced by the general confrontation of a superior or equal group of authoritarian states. It is still not entirely clear how democratic states will behave towards each other in the absence or qualitative reduction in the scale of the threat from authoritarian states.

If, nevertheless, the pattern of peaceful interaction between democratic states is not violated in the 21st century, then the expansion of the field of democracy taking place in the world now will also mean an expansion of the global zone of peace. This, apparently, is the first and main qualitative difference between the new emerging system of international relations and the classical Westphalian system, in which the predominance of authoritarian states predetermined the frequency of wars both between them and with the participation of democratic countries.

A qualitative change in the relationship between democracy and authoritarianism on a global scale gave grounds to the American researcher F. Fukuyama to proclaim the final victory of democracy and, in this sense, to announce the “end of history” as a struggle between historical formations. However, it seems that the massive advance of democracy at the turn of the century does not yet mean its complete victory. Communism as a socio-political system, although with certain changes, has been preserved in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, and Cuba. His legacy is felt in a number of countries of the former Soviet Union, in Serbia.

Except, perhaps, North Korea in all other socialist countries, elements of a market economy are being introduced; they are drawn in one way or another into the world economic system. The practice of relations of some surviving communist states with other countries is governed by the principles of "peaceful coexistence" rather than "class struggle". The ideological charge of communism is focused more on domestic consumption, and pragmatism is increasingly gaining the upper hand in foreign policy. Partial economic reform and openness to international economic relations generate social forces that require a corresponding expansion of political freedoms. But the dominant one-party system works in the opposite direction. As a result, there is a "seesaw" effect moving from liberalism to authoritarianism and vice versa. In China, for example, it was a move from the pragmatic reforms of Deng Xiaoping to the forceful suppression of student protests in Tiananmen Square, then from a new wave of liberalization to tightening the screws, and back to pragmatism.

Experience of the 20th century shows that the communist system inevitably reproduces a foreign policy that conflicts with the politics generated by democratic societies. Of course, the fact of a radical difference in socio-political systems does not necessarily lead to the inevitability of a military conflict. But equally justified is the assumption that the existence of this contradiction does not exclude such a conflict and does not allow one to hope for the achievement of the level of relations that are possible between democratic states.

There are still a significant number of states in the authoritarian sphere, the socio-political model of which is determined either by the inertia of personal dictatorships, as, for example, in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or by an anomaly of the prosperity of medieval forms of Eastern rule, combined with technological progress in Saudi Arabia, the states of the Persian Gulf , some Maghreb countries. At the same time, the first group is in a state of irreconcilable confrontation with democracy, and the second is ready to cooperate with it as long as it does not seek to shake the socio-political status quo established in these countries. Authoritarian structures, albeit in a modified form, have taken root in a number of post-Soviet states, for example, in Turkmenistan.

A special place among authoritarian regimes is occupied by the countries of "Islamic statehood" of an extremist persuasion - Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan. The unique potential of influencing world politics is given to them by the international movement of Islamic political extremism, known under the not quite correct name “Islamic fundamentalism”. This revolutionary ideological trend that rejects Western democracy as a way of life of society, allowing terror and violence as a means of implementing the doctrine of "Islamic statehood", received in last years widespread among the population in most countries of the Middle East and other states with a high percentage of the Muslim population.

Unlike the surviving communist regimes, which (with the exception of North Korea) are looking for ways of rapprochement with democratic states, at least in the economic field, and whose ideological charge is fading, Islamic political extremism is dynamic, massive and really threatens the stability of the regimes in Saudi Arabia. , countries of the Persian Gulf, some states of the Maghreb, Pakistan, Turkey, Central Asia. Of course, when assessing the scale of the challenge of Islamic political extremism, the world community should observe a sense of proportion, take into account opposition to it in the Muslim world, for example, from secular and military structures in Algeria, Egypt, the dependence of the countries of the new Islamic statehood on the world economy, as well as signs of a certain erosion extremism in Iran.

The persistence and possibility of an increase in the number of authoritarian regimes does not exclude the possibility of military clashes both between them and with the democratic world. Apparently, it is in the sector of authoritarian regimes and in the zone of contact between the latter and the world of democracy that the most dangerous processes fraught with military conflicts may develop in the future. The “gray” zone of states that have moved away from authoritarianism, but have not yet completed democratic transformations, also remains non-conflicting. However, the general trend that has clearly manifested itself in recent times still testifies to a qualitative change in the global socio-political field in favor of democracy, and also to the fact that authoritarianism is waging historical rearguard battles. Of course, the study of further ways of developing international relations should include a more thorough analysis of the patterns of relations between countries that have reached different stages of democratic maturity, the impact of democratic predominance in the world on the behavior of authoritarian regimes, and so on.

Global economic organism

Proportionate socio-political changes in the world economic system. The fundamental rejection of centralized economic planning by most former socialist countries meant that in the 1990s the large-scale potential and markets of these countries were included in the global market economy system. True, it was not about ending the confrontation between two approximately equal blocs, as was the case in the military-political field. The economic structures of socialism have never offered any serious competition to the Western economic system. At the end of the 1980s, the share of the CMEA member countries in the gross world product was about 9%, and that of the industrially developed capitalist countries was 57%. Much of the Third World economy was oriented towards the market system. Therefore, the process of including the former socialist economies in the world economy had rather a long-term significance and symbolized the completion of the formation or restoration of a single global economic system at a new level. Its qualitative changes were accumulating in the market system even before the end of the Cold War.

In the 1980s, there was a broad breakthrough in the world towards the liberalization of the world economy - reducing state guardianship over the economy, granting greater freedoms to private entrepreneurship within countries and abandoning protectionism in relations with foreign partners, which, however, did not exclude state assistance in entering the world markets. It was these factors that primarily provided the economies of a number of countries, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea, with unprecedented high growth rates. The crisis that has recently hit a number of countries in the South East Asia, according to many economists, was the result of the "overheating" of the economies as a result of their rapid rise while maintaining archaic political structures that distort economic liberalization. Economic reforms in Turkey contributed to the rapid modernization of this country. In the early 1990s, the process of liberalization spread to Latin American countries - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. The rejection of strict state planning, the reduction of the budget deficit, the privatization of large banks and state-owned enterprises, and the reduction of customs tariffs allowed them to sharply increase their economic growth rates and take second place in this indicator after the countries of East Asia. At the same time, similar reforms, albeit of a much less radical nature, are beginning to make their way in India. The 1990s are reaping the tangible benefits of opening China's economy to the outside world.

The logical consequence of these processes was a significant intensification of international interaction between national economies. The growth rate of international trade exceeds the world rate of domestic economic growth. Today, more than 15% of the world's gross domestic product is sold in foreign markets. Involvement in international trade has become a serious and universal factor in the growth of the well-being of the world community. The completion in 1994 of the GATT Uruguay Round, which provides for a further significant reduction in tariffs and the spread of trade liberalization to service flows, the transformation of GATT into the World Trade Organization marked the entry of international trade to a qualitatively new frontier, an increase in the interdependence of the world economic system.

In the last decade, a significantly intensified process of internationalization of financial capital has developed in the same direction. This was especially evident in the intensification of international investment flows, which since 1995 have been growing faster than trade and production. This was the result of a significant change in the investment climate in the world. Democratization, political stabilization and economic liberalization in many regions have made them more attractive to foreign investors. On the other hand, there has been a psychological turning point in many developing countries, which have realized that attracting foreign capital is a springboard for development, facilitates access to international markets and access to the latest technologies. This, of course, required a partial renunciation of absolute economic sovereignty and meant increased competition for a number of domestic industries. But the examples of the "Asian tigers" and China have prompted most developing countries and states with economies in transition to join the competition to attract investment. In the mid-90s, the volume of foreign investment exceeded 2 trillion. dollars and continues to grow rapidly. Organizationally, this trend is reinforced by a noticeable increase in the activity of international banks, investment funds and stock exchanges. Another facet of this process is a significant expansion of the field of activity of transnational corporations, which today control about a third of the assets of all private companies in the world, and the volume of sales of their products is approaching the gross product of the US economy.

Undoubtedly, promoting the interests of domestic companies in the world market remains one of the main tasks of any state. With all the liberalization of international economic relations, interethnic contradictions, as often violent disputes between the United States and Japan over trade imbalances or with the European Union over its subsidization of agriculture, persist. But it is obvious that with the current degree of interdependence of the world economy, almost no state can oppose its selfish interests to the world community, since it risks becoming a global pariah or undermining the existing system with equally deplorable results not only for competitors, but also for its own economy.

The process of internationalization and strengthening of the interdependence of the world economic system proceeds in two planes - in the global and in the plane of regional integration. Theoretically, regional integration could spur interregional rivalry. But today this danger is limited to some new properties of the world economic system. First of all, the openness of new regional formations - they do not erect additional tariff barriers along their periphery, but remove them in relations between participants faster than tariffs are reduced globally within the WTO. This is an incentive for further, more radical reduction of barriers on a global scale, including between regional economic structures. In addition, some countries are members of several regional groupings. For example, the USA, Canada, Mexico are full members of both APEC and NAFTA. And the vast majority of transnational corporations simultaneously operate in the orbits of all existing regional organizations.

The new qualities of the world economic system - the rapid expansion of the market economy zone, the liberalization of national economies and their interaction through trade and international investment, the cosmopolitanization of an increasing number of subjects of the world economy - TNCs, banks, investment groups - have a serious impact on world politics, international relations. The world economy is becoming so interconnected and interdependent that the interests of all its active participants require the preservation of stability not only in the economic but also in the military-political sense. Some scholars who refer to the fact that a high degree of interaction in the European economy at the beginning of the 20th century. did not prevent unraveling. First World War, they ignore a qualitatively new level of interdependence of today's world economy and the cosmopolitanization of its significant segment, a radical change in the ratio of economic and military factors in world politics. But the most significant, including for the formation of a new system of international relations, is the fact that the process of creating a new world economic community interacts with democratic transformations of the socio-political field. In addition, recently the globalization of the world economy has increasingly played the role of a stabilizer in world politics and the security sphere. This influence is especially noticeable in the behavior of a number of authoritarian states and societies moving from authoritarianism to democracy. The large-scale and growing dependence of the economy, for example, China, a number of newly independent states on world markets, investments, technologies makes them adjust their positions on the political and military problems of international life.

Naturally, the global economic horizon is not cloudless. The main problem remains the gap between industrialized countries and a significant number of developing or economically stagnant countries. The processes of globalization cover primarily the community of developed countries. In recent years, the trend towards a progressive widening of this gap has intensified. According to many economists, a significant number of countries in Africa and a number of other states, such as Bangladesh, are “forever” behind. For a large group of emerging economies, in particular Latin America, their attempts to approach world leaders are nullified by huge external debt and the need to service it. A special case is presented by economies that are making the transition from a centrally planned system to a market model. Their entry into the world markets for goods, services, and capital is especially painful.

There are two opposing hypotheses regarding the impact of this gap, conventionally referred to as the gap between the new North and South, on world politics. Many internationalists see this long-term phenomenon as the main source of future conflicts and even attempts by the South to forcibly redistribute the economic welfare of the world. Indeed, the current serious lag behind the leading powers in terms of such indicators as the share of GDP in the world economy or per capita income will require, say, from Russia (which accounts for about 1.5% of the world gross product), India, Ukraine, several decades of development at rates several times higher than the world average in order to approach the level of the United States, Japan, Germany and keep up with China. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that today's leading countries will not stand still. Similarly, it is difficult to assume that in the foreseeable future any new regional economic grouping - the CIS or, say, emerging in South America - will be able to approach the EU, APEC, NAFTA, each of which accounts for over 20% of the gross world product, world trade and finance.

According to another point of view, the internationalization of the world economy, the weakening of the charge of economic nationalism, the fact that the economic interaction of states is no longer a zero-sum game, give hope that the economic divide between North and South will not turn into a new source of global confrontation, especially in a situation where, although lagging behind the North in absolute terms, the South will nevertheless develop, increasing its well-being. Here, the analogy with the modus vivendi between large and medium-sized companies within national economies is probably appropriate: medium-sized companies do not necessarily antagonistically clash with leading corporations and seek to bridge the gap between them by any means. Much depends on the organizational and legal environment in which the business operates, in this case the global one.

The combination of liberalization and globalization of the world economy, along with obvious benefits, also carries hidden threats. The purpose of competition between corporations and financial institutions is profit, not the preservation of the stability of the market economy. Liberalization reduces restrictions on competition, while globalization expands its scope. As shown by the recent financial crisis in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Russia, which affected the markets of the whole world, the new state of the world economy means the globalization of not only positive, but also negative trends. Understanding this makes the world financial institutions save the economic systems of South Korea, Hong Kong, Brazil, Indonesia, and Russia. But these one-time transactions only underline the continuing contradiction between the benefits of liberal globalism and the cost of maintaining the stability of the world economy. Apparently, the globalization of risks will require the globalization of their management, the improvement of such structures as the WTO, the IMF and the group of seven leading industrial powers. It is also obvious that the growing cosmopolitan sector of the global economy is less accountable to the world community than national economies are to states.

Be that as it may, the new stage of world politics definitely brings its economic component to the fore. Thus, it can be assumed that the unification of a greater Europe is ultimately hindered, rather, not by conflicts of interests in the military-political field, but by a serious economic gap between the EU, on the one hand, and the post-communist countries, on the other. Similarly, the main logic of the development of international relations, for example, in the Asia-Pacific region is dictated not so much by considerations of military security as by economic challenges and opportunities. Over the past years, such international economic institutions as the G7, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank, the governing bodies of the EU, APEC, NAFTA, are clearly compared in terms of their influence on world politics with the Security Council, the UN General Assembly, regional political organizations, military alliances and often exceed them. Thus, the economization of world politics and the formation of a new quality of the world economy are becoming another main parameter of the system of international relations that is being formed today.

New parameters of military security

No matter how paradoxical, at first glance, the assumption about the development of a trend towards the demilitarization of the world community in the light of the recent dramatic conflict in the Balkans, tension in the Persian Gulf, the instability of the regimes for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it nevertheless has grounds for serious consideration in the long term. .

The end of the Cold War coincided with a radical change in the place and role of the military security factor in world politics. In the late 1980s and 1990s, there was a massive reduction in the global potential for Cold War military confrontation. Since the second half of the 1980s, global defense spending has been steadily declining. Within the framework of international treaties and in the form of unilateral initiatives, an unprecedented reduction in history of nuclear missile and conventional weapons and personnel of the armed forces is being carried out. The significant redeployment of the armed forces to national territories, the development of confidence-building measures and positive cooperation in the military field contributed to the decrease in the level of military confrontation. A large part of the world's military-industrial complex is being converted. The parallel intensification of limited conflicts on the periphery of the central military confrontation of the Cold War, for all their drama and "surprise" against the backdrop of peaceful euphoria, characteristic of the late 1980s, cannot be compared in scale and consequences with the leading trend in the demilitarization of world politics.

The development of this trend has several fundamental reasons. The prevailing democratic monotype of the world community, as well as the internationalization of the world economy, reduce the nutritional political and economic environment of the global institution of war. An equally important factor is the revolutionary significance of the nature of nuclear weapons, irrefutably proven throughout the course of the Cold War.

The creation of nuclear weapons meant in a broad sense the disappearance of the possibility of victory for any of the parties, which throughout the entire previous history of mankind was an indispensable condition for waging wars. Back in 1946. The American scientist B. Brody drew attention to this qualitative characteristic of nuclear weapons and expressed his firm conviction that in the future its only task and function would be to deter war. Some time later this axiom was confirmed by A.D. Sakharov. Throughout the Cold War, both the US and the USSR tried to find ways around this revolutionary reality. Both sides made active attempts to break out of the nuclear stalemate by building up and improving missile nuclear potentials, the development of sophisticated strategies for its application, and finally, approaches to the creation of anti-missile systems. Fifty years later, having created about 25 thousand strategic nuclear warheads alone, the nuclear powers came to the inevitable conclusion: the use of nuclear weapons means not only the destruction of the enemy, but also guaranteed suicide. Moreover, the prospect of a nuclear escalation has sharply limited the ability of the opposing sides to use conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons made the Cold War a kind of "forced peace" between the nuclear powers.

The experience of nuclear confrontation during the Cold War years, the radical reductions in the US and Russian nuclear missile arsenals in accordance with the START-1 and START-2 treaties, the renunciation of nuclear weapons by Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine, the agreement in principle between the Russian Federation and the United States on further deeper reductions in nuclear charges and their means of delivery, the restraint of Great Britain, France and China in the development of their national nuclear potentials allow us to conclude that the leading powers recognize, in principle, the futility of nuclear weapons as a means of achieving victory or an effective means of influencing world politics. Although today it is difficult to imagine a situation where one of the powers could use nuclear weapons, the possibility of using them as a last resort or as a result of a mistake still remains. In addition, the retention of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, even in the process of radical reductions, increases the "negative significance" of the state possessing them. For example, fears (regardless of their justification) regarding the safety of nuclear materials on the territory of the former Soviet Union further increase the attention of the world community to its successors, including Russian Federation.

Several fundamental obstacles stand in the way of universal nuclear disarmament. The complete renunciation of nuclear weapons also means the disappearance of their main function - the deterrence of war, including conventional war. In addition, a number of powers, such as Russia or China, may consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a temporary compensation for the relative weakness of their conventional weapons capabilities, and, together with Britain and France, as a political symbol of great power. Finally, other countries, especially those in a state of local cold wars with their neighbors, such as Israel, India, and Pakistan, have learned that even minimal nuclear weapons potentials can serve as an effective means of deterring war.

The testing of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan in the spring of 1998 reinforces the stalemate in the confrontation between these countries. It can be assumed that the legalization of the nuclear status by long-standing rivals will force them to more energetically seek ways to resolve the long-standing conflict in principle. On the other hand, the not quite adequate reaction of the world community to such a blow to the non-proliferation regime may give rise to a temptation for other “threshold” states to follow the example of Delhi and Islamabad. And this will lead to a domino effect, whereby the likelihood of an unauthorized or irrational detonation of a nuclear weapon may outweigh its deterrent capabilities.

Some dictatorial regimes, taking into account the results of the wars for the Falklands, in the Persian Gulf, in the Balkans, not only realized the futility of confrontation with the leading powers that have a qualitative superiority in the field of conventional weapons, but also came to the understanding that the guarantee against the repetition of similar defeats could be the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Thus, two medium-term tasks are really coming to the fore in the nuclear sphere - strengthening the system of non-proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and, at the same time, determining the functional parameters and the minimum sufficient size of the nuclear potentials of the powers possessing them.

Tasks in the field of preserving and strengthening non-proliferation regimes today are pushing aside in terms of priority the classic problem of reducing strategic arms of the Russian Federation and the United States. The long-term task remains to continue to clarify the expediency and search for ways to move towards a nuclear-free world in the context of a new world policy.

The dialectical link connecting the regimes of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile means of their delivery, on the one hand, with the control over strategic arms of "traditional" nuclear powers, on the other, is the problem of anti-missile defense and the fate of the ABM Treaty. The prospect of creating nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, as well as missiles medium range, and in the near future and intercontinental missiles by a number of states puts forward the problem of protection against such a danger to the center of strategic thinking. The United States has already outlined its preferred solution - the creation of a "thin" missile defense of the country, as well as regional anti-missile systems theaters of war, in particular, in the Asia-Pacific region - against North Korean missiles, and in the Middle East - against Iranian missiles. Such unilaterally deployed anti-missile capabilities would devalue the nuclear deterrence potentials of the Russian Federation and China, which could lead to the latter's desire to compensate for the change in the strategic balance by building up their own nuclear missile weapons with the inevitable destabilization of the global strategic situation.

Another topical problem is the phenomenon of local conflicts. The end of the Cold War was accompanied by a noticeable intensification of local conflicts. Most of them were rather domestic than international, in the sense that the contradictions that caused them were related to separatism, the struggle for power or territory within one state. Most of the conflicts were the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the aggravation of national-ethnic contradictions, the manifestation of which was previously restrained by authoritarian systems or the bloc discipline of the Cold War. Other conflicts, such as in Africa, were the result of weakening statehood and economic ruin. The third category is long-term "traditional" conflicts in the Middle East, in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, around Kashmir, which survived the end of the Cold War, or flared up again, as happened in Cambodia.

With all the drama of local conflicts at the turn of the 80s - 90s, over time, the severity of most of them subsided somewhat, as, for example, in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, and finally in Tajikistan . This is partly due to the gradual realization by the conflicting parties of the high cost and futility of a military solution to problems, and in many cases this trend was reinforced by peace enforcement (this was the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Transnistria), other peacekeeping efforts with the participation of international organizations - the UN, OSCE, CIS. True, in several cases, for example, in Somalia and Afghanistan, such efforts have not yielded the desired results. This trend is reinforced by significant moves towards a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Pretoria and the "front-line states". The corresponding conflicts have served as a breeding ground for instability in the Middle East and southern Africa.

On the whole, the global picture of local armed conflicts is also changing. In 1989 there were 36 major conflicts in 32 districts, and in 1995 there were 30 such conflicts in 25 districts. Some of them, such as the mutual extermination of the Tutsi and Hutu peoples in East Africa, take on the character of genocide. A real assessment of the scale and dynamics of "new" conflicts is hampered by their emotional perception. They broke out in those regions that were considered (without sufficient reason) to be traditionally stable. In addition, they arose at a time when the world community believed in the absence of conflict in world politics after the end of the Cold War. An impartial comparison of the “new” conflicts with the “old” ones that raged during the Cold War in Asia, Africa, Central America, the Near and Middle East, despite the scale of the latest conflict in the Balkans, allows us to draw a more balanced conclusion about the long-term trend.

More relevant today are armed operations that are undertaken under the leadership of leading Western countries, primarily the United States, against countries that are considered to violate international law, democratic or humanitarian norms. The most illustrative examples are operations against Iraq to stop aggression against Kuwait, enforcement of peace at the final stage of the internal conflict in Bosnia, and the restoration of law in Haiti and Somalia. These operations were carried out with the sanction of the UN Security Council. A special place is occupied by large-scale military operation, undertaken by NATO unilaterally without the consent of the UN, against Yugoslavia in connection with the situation in which the Albanian population found itself in Kosovo. The significance of the latter lies in the fact that it calls into question the principles of the global political and legal regime, as it was enshrined in the UN Charter.

The global reduction in military arsenals more clearly marked the qualitative gap in armaments between the leading military powers and the rest of the world. The Falklands conflict at the end of the Cold War, and then the Gulf War and operations in Bosnia and Serbia, clearly demonstrated this gap. Progress in miniaturization and increasing the ability to destroy conventional warheads, improvement of guidance, control, command and reconnaissance systems, means of electronic warfare, and increased mobility are justifiably considered the decisive factors of modern warfare. In Cold War terms, the balance of military power between North and South has shifted further in favor of the former.

Undoubtedly, against this background, the growing material capabilities of the United States to influence the development of the situation in the field of military security in most regions of the world. Abstracting from the nuclear factor, we can say: financial capabilities, high quality of weapons, the ability to quickly transfer large contingents of troops and weapons arsenals over long distances, a powerful presence in the oceans, the preservation of the main infrastructure of bases and military alliances - all this has turned the United States into a militarily the only global power. The fragmentation of the military potential of the USSR during its collapse, a deep and prolonged economic crisis that painfully affected the army and the military-industrial complex, the slow pace of reforming the weapons forces, the virtual absence of reliable allies limited the military capabilities of the Russian Federation to the Eurasian space. The systematic, long-term modernization of China's armed forces suggests a serious increase in its ability to project military power in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite the attempts of some Western European countries to play a more active military role outside the NATO area of ​​responsibility, as was the case during the Persian Gulf War or during peacekeeping operations in Africa, the Balkans, and as it was proclaimed for the future in the new NATO strategic doctrine, the parameters The military potential of Western Europe proper, without American participation, remains largely regional. All other countries of the world, for various reasons, can only count on the fact that the military potential of each of them will be one of the regional factors.

The new situation in the field of global military security is generally determined by the trend towards limiting the use of war in the classical sense. But at the same time, new forms of the use of force are emerging, such as "operation for humanitarian reasons." In combination with changes in the socio-political and economic fields, such processes in the military sphere have a serious impact on the formation of a new system of international relations.

Cosmopolitanization of world politics

The change in the traditional Westphalian system of international relations today affects not only the content of world politics, but also the circle of its subjects. If for three and a half centuries states have been the dominant participants in international relations, and world politics is mainly interstate politics, then in recent years they have been crowded out by transnational companies, international private financial institutions, non-governmental public organizations that do not have a specific nationality, are largely cosmopolitan.

Economic giants, which were previously easily attributed to the economic structures of a particular country, have lost this link, since their financial capital is transnational, managers are representatives of different nationalities, enterprises, headquarters and marketing systems are often located on different continents. Many of them can raise not the national flag, but only their own corporate flag on the flagpole. To a greater or lesser extent, the process of cosmopolitanization, or "offshorization", has affected all the major corporations in the world. Accordingly, their patriotism in relation to a particular state has decreased. The behavior of the transnational community of global financial centers is often as influential as the decisions of the IMF, the G7.

Today, the international non-governmental organization Greenpeace effectively fulfills the role of the “global environmental policeman” and often sets priorities in this area that most states are forced to accept. The public organization Amnesty International has much more influence than the UN Interstate Center for Human Rights. The television company CNN has abandoned the use of the term "foreign" in its broadcasts, since most of the world's countries are "domestic" for it. The authority of world churches and religious associations is expanding and growing significantly. An increasing number of people are born in one country, have the citizenship of another, and live and work in a third. It is often easier for a person to communicate via the Internet with people living on other continents than with housemates. Cosmopolitanization has also affected the worst part of the human community - organizations of international terrorism, crime, drug mafia do not know the fatherland, and their influence on world affairs remains at an all-time high level.

All this undermines one of the most important foundations of the Westphalian system - sovereignty, the right of the state to act as the supreme judge within national borders and the sole representative of the nation in international affairs. The voluntary transfer of a part of sovereignty to interstate institutions in the process of regional integration or within the framework of such international organizations as the OSCE, the Council of Europe, etc., has been supplemented in recent years by the spontaneous process of its “diffusion” on a global scale.

There is a point of view according to which the international community is reaching more high level world politics, with a long-term vision of the formation of the United States of the World. Or, to put it in modern language, it is moving towards a system similar in spontaneous and democratic principles of construction and operation to the Internet. Obviously, this is too fantastic a forecast. The European Union should probably be considered as a prototype of the future system of world politics. Be that as it may, it can be asserted with full confidence that the globalization of world politics, the growth of the cosmopolitan component in it in the near future will require states to seriously reconsider their place and role in the activities of the world community.

Increasing the transparency of borders, strengthening the intensification of transnational communication, the technological capabilities of the information revolution lead to the globalization of processes in the spiritual sphere of the life of the world community. Globalization in other areas has led to a certain erasure national characteristics everyday lifestyle, tastes, fashion. The new quality of international political and economic processes, the situation in the field of military security opens up additional opportunities and stimulates the search for a new quality of life in the spiritual realm as well. Already today, with rare exceptions, the doctrine of the priority of human rights over national sovereignty can be considered universal. The end of the global ideological struggle between capitalism and communism made it possible to take a fresh look at the spiritual values ​​that dominate the world, the relationship between the rights of an individual and the welfare of society, national and global ideas. Recently, criticism of the negative features of the consumer society, the culture of hedonism has been growing in the West, and a search is being made for ways to combine individualism and a new model of moral revival. The directions of the search for a new morality of the world community are evidenced, for example, by the call of the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, to revive “a natural, unique and inimitable sense of the world, an elementary sense of justice, the ability to understand things in the same way as others, a sense of increased responsibility, wisdom, good taste, courage, compassion and faith in the importance of simple actions that do not pretend to be the universal key to salvation.

The tasks of the moral renaissance are among the first on the agenda of world churches, the policies of a number of leading states. Of great importance is the result of the search for a new national idea that combines specific and universal values, a process that goes on, in essence, in all post-communist societies. There are suggestions that in the XXI century. the ability of a state to ensure the spiritual flourishing of its society will be no less important for determining its place and role in the world community than material well-being and military power.

Globalization and cosmopolitanization of the world community are determined not only by the opportunities associated with new processes in its life, but also by the challenges of recent decades. First of all, we are talking about such planetary tasks as the protection of the world ecological system, the regulation of global migration flows, the tension that periodically arises in connection with population growth and the limited natural resources of the globe. Obviously - and this has been confirmed by practice - that the solution of such problems requires a planetary approach adequate to their scale, mobilization of efforts not only of national governments, but also of non-state transnational organizations of the world community.

Summing up, we can say that the process of forming a single world community, a global wave of democratization, a new quality of the world economy, radical demilitarization and a change in the vector of the use of force, the emergence of new, non-state, subjects of world politics, the internationalization of the spiritual sphere of human life and challenges to the world community give grounds for the assumption of the formation of a new system of international relations, different not only from the one that existed during the Cold War, but in many respects from the traditional Westphalian system. To all appearances, it was not the end of the Cold War that gave rise to new trends in world politics; it only strengthened them. Rather, it was the new, transcendental processes in the field of politics, economics, security, and the spiritual sphere that emerged during the Cold War that blew up the old system of international relations and are shaping its new quality.

In the world science of international relations, there is currently no unity regarding the essence and driving forces of the new system of international relations. This, apparently, is explained by the fact that today's world politics is characterized by a clash of traditional and new, hitherto unknown factors. Nationalism fights against internationalism, geopolitics - against global universalism. Such fundamental concepts as "power", "influence", "national interests" are being transformed. The range of subjects of international relations is expanding and the motivation for their behavior is changing. The new content of world politics requires new organizational forms. It is still premature to speak of the birth of a new system of international relations as a completed process. It is perhaps more realistic to talk about the main trends in the formation of the future world order, its growth out of the former system of international relations.

As with any analysis, in this case it is important to observe the measure in assessing the relationship between the traditional and the newly emerging. Roll in any direction distorts the perspective. Nevertheless, even a somewhat exaggerated emphasis on new trends in the future that is being formed today is now methodologically more justified than fixation on attempts to explain emerging unknown phenomena exclusively with the help of traditional concepts. There is no doubt that the stage of a fundamental demarcation between new and old approaches must be followed by a stage of synthesis of the new and the unchanged in contemporary international life. It is important to correctly determine the ratio of national and global factors, the new place of the state in the world community, to balance such traditional categories as geopolitics, nationalism, power, national interests, with new transnational processes and regimes. States that have correctly determined the long-term perspective of the formation of a new system of international relations can count on greater effectiveness of their efforts, and those who continue to act on the basis of traditional ideas risk being at the tail end of world progress.

1. Gadzhiev K. S. Introduction to geopolitics. - M., 1997.
2. Global social and political changes in the world. Materials of the Russian-American seminar (Moscow, October 23 - 24 / Editor-in-chief A. Yu. Melville. - M., 1997.
3. Kennedy P. Entering the twenty-first century. - M., 1997.
4. Kissinger G. Diplomacy. - M., 1997. Pozdnyakov E. A. Geopolitics. - M., 1995.
5. Huntington S. Clash of Civilizations // Polis. - 1994. - No. 1.
6. Tsygankov P. A. International relations. - M., 1996.

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations that emerged after the Second World War was part of the Westphalian model of the world, based on the primacy of the sovereignty of the nation state. This system was consolidated by the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which approved the principle of the inviolability of the state borders established in Europe.

An exceptionally positive feature of the Yalta-Potsdam order was a high degree of controllability of international processes.

The system was based on the coordination of the opinions of the two superpowers, which were at the same time the leaders of the largest military-political blocs: NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO). Block discipline guaranteed the execution of the decisions taken by the leaders by the rest of the members of these organizations. Exceptions were extremely rare. For example, for the Warsaw Pact, such an exception was Romania's refusal in 1968 to support the entry of bloc troops into Czechoslovakia.

In addition, the USSR and the USA had their own spheres of influence in the "third world", which included the so-called developing countries. The solution of economic and social problems in most of these countries, and often the strength of the positions of power of specific political forces and figures, to one degree or another (in other cases absolutely) depended on outside help and support. The superpowers used this circumstance to their advantage, directly or indirectly determining the foreign policy behavior of the third world countries oriented towards them.

The state of confrontation in which the USA and the USSR, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were constantly located led to the fact that the parties systematically took steps hostile to each other, but at the same time they made sure that clashes and peripheral conflicts did not create the threat of a Great War. Both sides adhered to the concept of nuclear deterrence and strategic stability based on the "balance of fear".

Thus, the Yalta-Potsdam system as a whole was a system of rigid order, in the main effective and therefore viable.

The factor that did not allow this system to acquire long-term positive stability was the ideological confrontation. The geopolitical rivalry between the USSR and the USA was only an external expression of the confrontation various systems social and ethical values. On the one hand - the ideals of equality, social justice, collectivism, the priority of non-material values; on the other - freedom, competition, individualism, material consumption.

Ideological polarization determined the intransigence of the parties, made it impossible for them to abandon their strategic orientation towards an absolute victory over the bearers of an antagonistic ideology, over the opposite social and political system.

The outcome of this global confrontation is known. Without going into details, we note that he was not uncontested. The so-called human factor played the main role in the defeat and collapse of the USSR. Authoritative political scientists S.V. Kortunov and A.I. Utkin, having analyzed the causes of what happened, independently came to the conclusion that the transition of the USSR to an open society and a law-based state could have been carried out without the collapse of the country, if not for a number of gross miscalculations admitted by the ruling elite of the late Soviet Union.

In foreign policy, this was expressed, according to the American researcher R. Hunter, in the strategic retreat of the USSR from the positions achieved as a result of victory in World War II and the destruction of its outposts. The Soviet Union, according to Hunter, "surrendered all its international positions."

The disappearance from the political map of the USSR, one of the two pillars of the post-war world order, led to the collapse of the entire Yalta-Potsdam system.

The new system of international relations is still in the process of formation. The delay is explained by the fact that the controllability of world processes was lost: the countries that were previously in the sphere of Soviet influence were not for some time in an uncontrolled state; countries in the US sphere of influence, in the absence of a common enemy, began to act more independently; “fragmentation of the world” developed, expressed in the activation of separatist movements, ethnic and confessional conflicts; in international relations, the importance of force has grown.

The situation in the world 20 years after the collapse of the USSR and the Yalta-Potsdam system does not give grounds to believe that the previous level of controllability of world processes has been restored. And most likely, in the foreseeable future, "the processes of world development will remain predominantly spontaneous in their nature and course."

Today, many factors influence the formation of a new system of international relations. We list only the most important ones:

First, globalization. It is expressed in the internationalization of the economy, the expansion of the flow of information, capital, the people themselves around the world with increasingly transparent borders. As a result of globalization, the world is becoming more integral and interdependent. Any more or less noticeable shifts in one part of the world have an echo in other parts of it. However, globalization is a controversial process that has negative consequences, stimulating states to take isolationist measures;

secondly, the growth of global problems, the solution of which requires the combined efforts of the world community. In particular, today the problems associated with climate anomalies on the planet are becoming increasingly important for humanity;

thirdly, the rise and growth of the role in the international life of new world-class powers, primarily China, India and the so-called regional powers, such as Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, South Africa and some others. The new system of international relations and its parameters cannot now depend only on the Atlantic powers. This, in particular, affects the time frame for the formation of a new system of international relations;

fourthly, the deepening of social inequality in the world community, the strengthening of the division of the global society into the world of wealth and stability (“golden billion”) and the world of poverty, instability, conflicts. Between these world poles, or, as they say - "North" and "South", the confrontation is growing. This feeds radical movements and is one of the sources of international terrorism. The "South" wants to restore justice, and for the sake of it, the disadvantaged masses can support any "al-Qaeda", any tyrant.

In general, two tendencies oppose in world development: one is towards the integration and universalization of the world, the growth international cooperation and the second - to the disintegration and disintegration of the world into several opposing regional political or even military-political associations based on common economic interests, upholding the right of their peoples to development and prosperity.

All this makes us take seriously the forecast of the English researcher Ken Bus: New Age... will perhaps be more like the colorful and restless Middle Ages than the static twentieth century, but will take into account the lessons learned from both.

At present, modern international relations are characterized by dynamic development, a variety of different relationships and unpredictability. The Cold War and, accordingly, the bipolar confrontation are a thing of the past. The transitional moment from the bipolar system to the formation of a modern system of international relations begins in the 1980s, just during the policy of M.S. Gorbachev, namely during the "perestroika" and "new thinking".

At the moment, in the era of the post-bipolar world, the status of the only superpower - the United States - is in the "challenging phase", which means that today the number of powers that are ready to challenge the United States is increasing at a rapid pace. Already at the moment, at least two superpowers are the obvious leaders in the international arena and are ready to challenge America - these are Russia and China. And if we consider the views of E.M. Primakov in his book “A World without Russia? What political short-sightedness leads to, ”according to his predictive estimates, the role of the hegemon of the United States will be shared with the European Union, India, China, South Korea and Japan.

In this context, it is worth noting the important events in international relations that demonstrate the formation of Russia as a country independent of the West. In 1999, during the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO troops, Russia came out in defense of Serbia, which confirmed the independence of Russia's policy from the West.

It is also necessary to mention the speech of Vladimir Putin before the ambassadors in 2006. It is worth noting that the meeting of Russian ambassadors is held annually, but it was in 2006 that Putin first declared that Russia should play the role of a great power, guided by its national interests. A year later, on February 10, 2007, Putin's famous Munich speech was delivered, which, in fact, is the first frank conversation with the West. Putin conducted a tough but very deep analysis of the Western policy, which led to the crisis of the world security system. In addition, the president spoke about the unacceptability of a unipolar world, and now, 10 years later, it has become obvious that today the United States cannot cope with the role of the world policeman.

Thus, modern international relations are now in transit, and Russia since the twentieth century has shown its independent policy, led by a worthy leader.

Also, the trend of modern international relations is globalization, which is contrary to the Westphalian system, built on the idea of ​​relatively isolated and self-sufficient states and on the principle of "balance of power" between them. It should be noted that globalization has an uneven character, since the modern world is rather asymmetric, therefore globalization is considered a contradictory phenomenon of modern international relations. It should be mentioned that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that was a powerful surge of globalization, at least in the economic sphere, since at the same time transnational corporations with economic interest began to operate actively.

In addition, it should be emphasized that the trend of modern international relations is the active integration of countries. Globalization differs from integration between countries by the absence of interstate agreements. However, it is globalization that influences the stimulation of the integration process, as it makes interstate borders transparent. The development of close cooperation within the framework of regional organizations, which began actively at the end of the twentieth century, is an obvious proof of this. Usually, at the regional level, there is an active integration of countries in the economic sphere, which has a positive effect on the global political process. At the same time, the process of globalization negatively affects the internal economies of countries, because it limits the ability of nation states to control their internal economic processes.

Considering the process of globalization, I would like to mention the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, which he said at the forum "Territory of Meanings": "Now this very model of globalization, including its economic and financial aspects, which this club of the elect has built for itself - liberal globalization, it is now, in my opinion, failing.” That is, the fact that the West wants to maintain its dominance in the international arena is obvious, however, as Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov noted in his book “A World Without Russia? What does political short-sightedness lead to”: “The United States has long been no longer the sole leader” and this indicates a new phase in the development of international relations. Thus, it is most objective to consider the future of international relations as the formation of not a multipolar, but precisely a polycentric world, since the tendency of regional associations leads to the formation of not poles, but centers of power.

An active role in the development of international relations is played by interstate organizations, as well as non-governmental international organizations and transnational corporations (TNCs), in addition, the emergence of international financial organizations and global trade networks has a great influence on the development of international relations, which is also a consequence of the shift in Westphalian principles, where the state was the only actor in international relations. It should be noted that TNCs may be interested in regional associations, as they are focused on cost optimization and the creation of unified production networks, therefore, they put pressure on the government to develop a free regional investment and trade regime.

In the context of globalization and post-bipolarity, interstate organizations are increasingly in need of reform in order to make their work more effective. For example, the activities of the UN, obviously, need to be reformed, since, in fact, its actions do not bring significant results to stabilize crisis situations. In 2014, Vladimir Putin proposed two conditions for reforming the organization: consistency in the decision to reform the UN, as well as the preservation of all the fundamental principles of activity. Once again, the participants of the Valdai Discussion Club spoke about the need to reform the UN at a meeting with V.V. Putin. It is also worth mentioning that E.M. Primakov said that the UN should strive to increase its influence when considering issues that threaten national security. Namely, not to grant the right to veto for a large number of countries, the right should belong only to the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Primakov also spoke about the need to develop other crisis management structures, not just the UN Security Council, and considered the advantages of the idea of ​​developing a charter of antiterrorist actions.

That is why one of the important factors in the development of modern international relations is an effective system of international security. One of the most serious problems in the international arena is the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other types of WMD. That is why it is worth noting that in the transitional period of the modern system of international relations, it is necessary to promote the strengthening of arms control. After all, such important agreements as the ABM Treaty and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) have ceased to operate, and the conclusion of new ones has remained in doubt.

In addition, within the framework of the development of modern international relations, not only the problem of terrorism, but also the problem of migration is relevant. The migration process has a detrimental effect on the development of states, because not only the country of origin suffers from this international problem, but also the recipient country, since migrants do nothing positive for the development of the country, mainly spreading an even wider range of problems, such as drug trafficking , terrorism and crime. To solve a situation of this nature, the collective security system is used, which, like the UN, needs to be reformed, because, observing their activities, it can be concluded that regional collective security organizations do not have consistency not only among themselves, but also with the Council UN security.

It is also worth noting the significant influence of soft power on the development of modern international relations. The concept of Joseph Nye's soft power implies the ability to achieve desired goals in the international arena, not using violent methods (hard power), but using political ideology, the culture of society and the state, as well as foreign policy (diplomacy). In Russia, the concept of “soft power” appeared in 2010 in Vladimir Putin’s election article “Russia and the Changing World”, where the president clearly formulated the definition of this concept: “Soft power” is a set of tools and methods for achieving foreign policy goals without the use of weapons, but for informational and other levers of influence”.

At the moment, the most obvious examples of the development of “soft power” are the holding in Russia in 2014 winter olympics in Sochi, as well as holding the World Cup in 2018 in many Russian cities.

It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Concepts of the Russian Federation of 2013 and 2016 mention “soft power”, the use of which tools is recognized as an integral part of foreign policy. However, the difference between the concepts lies in the role of public diplomacy. The 2013 Foreign Policy Concept of Russia pays great attention to public diplomacy, as it creates a favorable image of the country abroad. A striking example of public diplomacy in Russia is the creation in 2008 of the A. M. Gorchakov Foundation for the Support of Public Diplomacy, the main mission of which is “to encourage the development of the field of public diplomacy, as well as to promote the formation of a favorable public, political and business climate for Russia abroad.” But, despite the positive impact of public diplomacy on Russia, the issue of public diplomacy disappears in the 2016 Foreign Policy Concept of Russia, which looks rather inappropriate, since public diplomacy is the institutional and instrumental basis for the implementation of "soft power". However, it is worth noting that in the system of public diplomacy of Russia, areas related to international information policy are actively and successfully developing, which is already a good springboard for increasing the effectiveness of foreign policy work.

Thus, if Russia develops its concept of soft power based on the principles of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation 2016, namely, the rule of law in international relations, a fair and sustainable world order, then Russia will be perceived positively in the international arena.

It is obvious that modern international relations, being in transit and developing in a rather unstable world, will remain unpredictable, however, the prospects for the development of international relations, taking into account the strengthening of regional integration and the influence of centers of power, provide quite positive vectors for the development of global politics.

Links to sources:

1. Primakov E.M. World without Russia? What does political short-sightedness lead to.- M .: IIK "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" C-239.
2. NATO operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. - URL: https://ria.ru/spravka/20140324/1000550703.html
3. Speech at a meeting with ambassadors and permanent representatives of the Russian Federation. - URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/23669
4. Speech and discussion at the Munich Security Policy Conference. - URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034
5. The modern model of globalization is failing, Lavrov said. - URL: https://ria.ru/world/20170811/1500200468.html
6. Primakov E.M. World without Russia? What does political myopia lead to? - M.: IIK "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" 2009. P-239.
7. Vladimir Putin: The UN needs reform. - URL: https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1929681
8. Look over the horizon. Vladimir Putin met with the participants of the meeting of the Valdai Club // Valdai International Discussion Club. - URL: http://ru.valdaiclub.com/events/posts/articles/zaglyanut-za-gorizont-putin-valday/
9. Primakov E. M. World without Russia? What does political myopia lead to? - M.: IIK "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" 2009. P-239.
10. Vladimir Putin. Russia and the Changing World // Moscow News. - URL: http://www.mn.ru/politics/78738
11. Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation (2013). - URL: http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d447a0ce9f5a96bdc3.pdf
12. The concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation (2016). - URL:
13. Gorchakov Fund // Mission and tasks. - URL: http://gorchakovfund.ru/about/mission/

Gulyants Victoria