New system of international relations. Torkunov A. Modern international relations Parameters of the new system of international relations

As a result of studying the chapter, the student should:

know

• modern paradigm of international relations;
• the specifics of the current stage of functioning and development of the system of international relations;

be able to

• determine the role and place of specific actors in the system of international relations;
• identify trends in the functioning of the system of international relations and cause-and-effect relationships of specific processes in this area;

own

• method of multivariate forecasting of processes in the field of international relations in modern conditions;
• skills in analyzing international relations in a specific region of the world.

Basic patterns of formation of a new system of international relations

To this day, debates regarding the new world order that emerged after the end of the Cold War - the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, the leaders of the socialist and capitalist systems, have not subsided. There is a dynamic and full of contradictions formation new system international relations.

Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, speaking to representatives of the Russian diplomatic corps, noted: “International relations are constantly becoming more complicated, today we cannot assess them as balanced and stable, on the contrary, elements of tension and uncertainty are growing, and trust and openness remain, unfortunately, often unclaimed .

The shortage of new development models against the backdrop of erosion of the leadership of traditional economic locomotives (such as the USA, EU, Japan) leads to a slowdown in global development. The struggle for access to resources is intensifying, provoking abnormal fluctuations in commodity and energy markets. The multi-vector nature of global development, the internal socio-economic turmoil and problems in developed economies that have worsened as a result of the crisis, are weakening the dominance of the so-called historical West.”

Due to new independent states Asia and Africa increased the number of neutral countries, many of which formed the Non-Aligned Movement (for more details, see Chapter 5). At the same time, the rivalry between opposing blocs in the Third World intensified, which stimulated the emergence of regional conflicts.

The Third World is a political science term introduced in the second half of the 20th century to designate countries that were not directly involved in the Cold War and its accompanying arms race. The Third World was an arena of rivalry between the warring parties, the USA and the USSR.

At the same time, there is a directly opposite point of view that during the Cold War, the real system of international relations according to the so-called M. Kaplan scheme (see paragraph 1.2) was modified between rigid and free bipolar models. In the 1950s the development trend was more towards a rigid bipolar system, since the opposing superpowers sought to involve as many countries as possible into their orbit of influence, and the number of neutral states was small. In particular, the confrontation between the USA and the USSR virtually paralyzed the activities of the UN. The United States, with a majority of votes in the UN General Assembly, used it as an obedient voting mechanism, which the USSR could counter only with its veto power in the Security Council. As a result, the UN could not play the role assigned to it.

Experts' opinion

Bipolar world - term of political science denoting the bipolar structure of world political forces. The term reflects the tough power confrontation in the world that arose after

The Second World War, when the United States took the leading place among Western countries, and the USSR among socialist countries. According to Henry Kissinger (No Kissinger), an American diplomat and international relations expert, the world can be unipolar (hegemonic), bipolar, or in chaos. Currently, the world is experiencing a transformation from a unipolar (with US hegemony) to a multipolar model.

This ambiguity in the perception of the world order is reflected in official Russian documents. In Strategy national security of the Russian Federation until 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation) 1 states that Russia has restored the ability to increase its competitiveness and defend national interests as a key subject of emerging multipolar international relations. Concept foreign policy The Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation) states: “The tendency towards the creation of a unipolar structure of the world under the economic and military dominance of the United States is intensifying.”

After the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system, the United States (monopoly or with allies) did not remain the only world dominant. In the 1990s. Other centers of international gravity have also emerged: the states of the European Union, Japan, India, China, the states of the Asia-Pacific region, Brazil. Proponents of the zero-centric system approach proceed from the fact that Russia, as a matter of course, is assigned the place of one of such centers of powerful “political gravity”.

European Union (European Union, EU)- a political and economic union of 28 European states aimed at regional integration. Legally established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (which entered into force on November 1, 1993) on the principles of the European Communities. The EU includes: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Cyprus,

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia.

Domestic scientists note that if the key factor that determined the evolution of the system of international relations throughout its history was interstate conflict interaction within the framework of stable confrontational axes, then by the 1990s. prerequisites arise for the system to transition to a different qualitative state. It is characterized not only by the breakdown of the global confrontational axis, but also by the gradual formation of stable axes of cooperation between the leading countries of the world. As a result, an informal subsystem of developed states appears in the form of a world economic complex, the core of which is the G8 of leading countries, which has objectively turned into a control center regulating the process of formation of a system of international relations.

• Meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia. URL: http:// www.kremlin.ru/transcripts/15902 (access date: 02/27/2015).
• National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 (approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2009 No. 537).
• The concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Part II, i. 5.
• Garusova L. II. US foreign policy: main trends and directions (1990-2000s). Vladivostok: Publishing house VGUES, 2004. pp. 43-44.

At the end of XX – beginning of XXI V. New phenomena have emerged in international relations and foreign policy of states.

Firstly, the globalization.

Globalization(from French. global – universal) is the process of expanding and deepening the interdependence of the modern world, the formation of a unified system of financial, economic, socio-political and cultural connections based on the latest means of computer science and telecommunications.

The process of unfolding globalization reveals that, to a large extent, it presents new, favorable opportunities, primarily for the most powerful countries, consolidates a system of unfair redistribution of the planet’s resources in their interests, and promotes dissemination of attitudes and values ​​of Western civilization to all regions globe. In this regard, globalization represents Westernization, or Americanization, which is followed by the implementation of American interests in various regions of the globe. As the modern English researcher J. Gray points out, global capitalism as a movement towards free markets is not a natural process, but rather a political project based on American power. This, in fact, is not hidden by American theorists and politicians. Thus, G. Kissinger, in one of his latest books, states: “Globalization views the world as a single market in which the most efficient and competitive prosper. It accepts - and even welcomes the fact that the free market will ruthlessly separate the efficient from the inefficient, even at the cost of economic and political upheavals." This understanding of globalization and the corresponding behavior of the West gives rise to opposition in many countries of the world, public protests, including Western countries(movement of anti-globalists and alter-globalists). The growth of opponents of globalization confirms the growing need to create international norms and institutions that give it a civilized character.

Secondly, in the modern world it is becoming increasingly obvious trend of growth in the number and activity of subjects of international relations. In addition to the increase in the number of states due to the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, various international organizations are increasingly entering the international arena.

As is known, international organizations are divided into interstate , or intergovernmental (IGO), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

There are currently more than 250 operating in the world interstate organizations. A significant role among them belongs to the UN and such organizations as the OSCE, Council of Europe, WTO, IMF, NATO, ASEAN, etc. The United Nations, created in 1945, has become the most important institutional mechanism for multifaceted interaction various states in order to maintain peace and security, promote the economic and social progress of peoples. Today its members are more than 190 states. The main bodies of the UN are the General Assembly, the Security Council and a number of other councils and institutions. The General Assembly consists of UN member states, each of which has one vote. The decisions of this body do not have coercive force, but they have significant moral authority. The Security Council consists of 15 members, five of which - Great Britain, China, Russia, USA, France - are permanent members, the other 10 are elected General Assembly for a period of two years. Security Council decisions are taken by a majority vote, with each permanent member having the right of veto. In the event of a threat to peace, the Security Council has the authority to send a peacekeeping mission to the relevant region or apply sanctions against the aggressor, authorize military operations aimed at stopping the violence.

Since the 1970s The so-called "G7", an informal organization of the leading countries of the world - Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, the USA, France, Japan - began to play an increasingly active role as an instrument for regulating international relations. These countries coordinate their positions and actions on international issues at annual meetings. In 1991, USSR President M. S. Gorbachev was invited to the G7 meeting as a guest, then Russia began to regularly participate in the work of this organization. Since 2002, Russia has become a full participant in the work of this group and the “seven” began to be called "Group of Eight". IN last years Leaders of the 20 most powerful economies in the world began to gather ( "twenty") to discuss, first of all, crisis phenomena in the global economy.

In the conditions of post-bipolarity and globalization, the need to reform many interstate organizations is increasingly emerging. In this regard, the issue of reforming the UN is now being actively discussed in order to give its work greater dynamics, efficiency and legitimacy.

In the modern world there are about 27 thousand. non-governmental international organizations. The growth of their numbers and increasing influence on world events became especially noticeable in the second half of the 20th century. Along with such well-known organizations as the International Red Cross, the International Olympic Committee, Doctors Without Borders, etc., in recent decades, with the increase in environmental problems, it has acquired international authority. environmental organization Greenpeace. However, it should be noted that the international community is increasingly concerned about the growing illegal organizations - terrorist organizations, drug trafficking and pirate groups.

Thirdly, in the second half of the 20th century. International monopolies, or transnational corporations, began to acquire enormous influence on the world stage(TNK). These include enterprises, institutions and organizations whose goal is to make a profit, and which operate through their branches simultaneously in several states. The largest TICs have enormous economic resources, which give them advantages not only over small, but even over large powers. At the end of the 20th century. there were more than 53 thousand TNCs in the world.

Fourthly, the trend in the development of international relations has become growing global threats, and, accordingly, the need for their joint solution. Global threats challenges facing humanity can be divided into traditional And new. Among new challenges The world order should include international terrorism and drug trafficking, lack of control over transnational financial communications, etc. To traditional include: the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the threat of nuclear war, problems of conservation environment, exhaustion of many natural resources in the near future, growing social contrasts. Thus, in the context of globalization, many social problems. The world order is increasingly threatened by the deepening gap in the living standards of the peoples of developed and developing countries. Approximately 20% of the world's population currently consumes, according to the UN, about 90% of all goods produced in the world, the remaining 80% of the population is content with 10% of the goods produced. Less developed countries regularly face mass diseases and famines, which result in the death of large numbers of people. Recent decades have been marked by an increase in the flow of cardiovascular and cancer diseases, the spread of AIDS, alcoholism, and drug addiction.

Humanity has not yet found reliable ways to solve problems that threaten international stability. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a need for decisive progress towards reducing the urgent contrasts in the political and socio-economic development of the peoples of the Earth, otherwise the future of the planet seems rather gloomy.

A new system of international relations began at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations. However, during this period, more fundamental and qualitative systemic transformations took place: along with the Soviet Union, not only the confrontational system of international relations of the Cold War period and the Yalta-Potsdam world order ceased to exist, but the much older system of the Peace of Westphalia and its principles were undermined.

However, throughout the last decade of the twentieth century, there were active discussions in world science about what the new configuration of the world would be in the spirit of Westphalia. The dispute erupted between two main concepts of world order: the concepts of unipolarity and multipolarity.

Naturally, in light of the just-ended Cold War, the first conclusion to be drawn was a unipolar world order, supported by the only remaining superpower - the United States of America. Meanwhile, in reality everything turned out to be not so simple. In particular, as some researchers and politicians point out (for example, E.M. Primakov, R. Haas, etc.), with the end of the bipolar world, the very phenomenon of superpower disappeared from the world economic and geopolitical foreground in its traditional understanding: “During the Cold War, war," as long as there were two systems, there were two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States. Today there are no superpowers at all: the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, but neither has the United States, although it has exceptional political influence and is the most powerful militarily and economically state of the world, have lost such status"[Primakov E.M. A world without superpowers [Electronic resource] // Russia in global politics. October 2003 – URL: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/2242.html]. As a result, the role of the United States was declared not as the only one, but as one of several pillars of the new world order.

The American idea was being challenged. The main opponents of the US monopoly in the world are United Europe, the increasingly powerful China, Russia, India and Brazil. For example, China, followed by Russia, adopted the concept of a multipolar world in the 21st century as their official foreign policy doctrine. A kind of struggle has unfolded against the threat of unipolarity, for maintaining a multipolar balance of power as the main condition for stability in the world. In addition, it is also obvious that in the years since the liquidation of the USSR, the United States has actually been unable, despite its desire for world leadership, to establish itself in this role. Moreover, they had to experience the bitterness of failure; they got stuck in places where there seemed to be no problems (especially in the absence of a second superpower): in Somalia, Cuba, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Thus, the United States at the turn of the century was unable to stabilize the situation in the world.

While there was debate in scientific circles about the structure of the new system of international relations, a number of events that occurred at the turn of the century actually dotted the i’s themselves.

Several stages can be distinguished:

1. 1991 – 2000 – this stage can be defined as a period of crisis of the entire international system and a period of crisis in Russia. At this time, world politics was categorically dominated by the idea of ​​unipolarity led by the United States, and Russia was perceived as a “former superpower”, as a “losing side” in the Cold War, some researchers even write about the possible collapse of the Russian Federation in the near future (for example, Z. Brzezinski ). As a result, during this period there was a certain dictate regarding the actions of the Russian Federation from the world community.

This was largely due to the fact that the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in the early 90s of the twentieth century had a clear “pro-American vector.” Other trends in foreign policy appeared approximately after 1996, thanks to the replacement of the Westerner A. Kozyrev as Minister of Foreign Affairs by the statist E. Primakov. The difference in the positions of these figures determined not only a change in the vector Russian politics- it is becoming more independent, but many analysts are talking about transforming the model of Russian foreign policy. Changes introduced by E.M. Primakov, may well be called a consistent “Primakov Doctrine”. “Its essence: to interact with the main world actors, without rigidly siding with anyone.” According to the Russian researcher A. Pushkov, “this is a “third way” that allows one to avoid the extremes of the “Kozyrev doctrine” (“the position of America’s junior partner who agrees to everything or almost everything”) and the nationalist doctrine (“to distance oneself from Europe, the USA and Western institutions- NATO, IMF, World Bank"), try to turn into an independent center of gravity for all those who do not have good relations with the West, from the Bosnian Serbs to the Iranians."

After E. Primakov’s resignation from the post of Prime Minister in 1999, the geostrategy he defined was basically continued - in fact, there was no other alternative to it and it met Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. Thus, Russia finally managed to formulate its own geostrategy, which is conceptually well founded and quite practical. It is quite natural that the West did not accept it, since it was ambitious in nature: Russia still intends to play the role of a world power and is not going to agree to a decrease in its global status.

2. 2000-2008 – the beginning of the second stage was undoubtedly marked in to a greater extent events of September 11, 2001, as a result of which the idea of ​​unipolarity actually collapses in the world. In US political and scientific circles, they are gradually beginning to talk about a departure from hegemonic policies and the need to establish US global leadership, supported by its closest allies from the developed world.

In addition, at the beginning of the 21st century there is a change political leaders in almost all leading countries. In Russia, a new president, V. Putin, comes to power and the situation begins to change. Putin finally affirms the idea of ​​a multipolar world as the basic one in Russia's foreign policy strategy. In such a multipolar structure, Russia claims to be one of the main players, along with China, France, Germany, Brazil and India. However, the United States does not want to give up its leadership. As a result, a real geopolitical war is playing out, and the main battles are playing out in the post-Soviet space (for example, “color revolutions”, gas conflicts, the problem of NATO expansion to a number of countries in the post-Soviet space, etc.).

Some researchers define the second stage as “post-American”: “We live in the post-American period of world history. This is actually a multipolar world, based on 8 - 10 pillars. They are not equally strong, but have enough autonomy. These are the USA, Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, but also Iran and South America, where Brazil plays a leading role. South Africa on the African continent and other pillars are centers of power.” However, this is not a “world after the USA” and especially without the USA. This is a world where, due to the rise of other global “power centers” and their increasing influence, the relative importance of America’s role has been diminishing, as has been the case in global economics and trade over the past decades. A real “global political awakening” is taking place, as Z. Brzezinski writes in his latest book. This “global awakening” is determined by such multidirectional forces as economic success, national dignity, increasing levels of education, information “weapons,” and the historical memory of peoples. This, in particular, is where the rejection of the American version of world history arises.

3. 2008 - present - the third stage, first of all, was marked by the coming to power in Russia of a new president - D.A. Medvedev, and then the election of V.V. Putin to the previous presidential post. In general, the foreign policy of the early 21st century was continued.

In addition, the events in Georgia in August 2008 played a key role at this stage: firstly, the war in Georgia became evidence that the “transitional” period of transformation of the international system had ended; secondly, there was a final balance of power at the interstate level: it became obvious that the new system has completely different foundations and Russia will be able to play a key role here by developing some kind of global concept based on the idea of ​​multipolarity.

“After 2008, Russia moved to a position of consistent criticism of the global activities of the United States, defending the prerogatives of the UN, the inviolability of sovereignty and the need to strengthen the regulatory framework in the security sphere. The United States, on the contrary, shows disdain for the UN, promoting the “interception” of a number of its functions by other organizations – NATO, first of all. American politicians are putting forward the idea of ​​​​creating new international organizations on political and ideological principles - based on the conformity of their future members with democratic ideals. American diplomacy stimulates anti-Russian tendencies in the politics of the countries of the East and South- of Eastern Europe and is trying to create in the CIS space regional associations without the participation of Russia,” writes Russian researcher T. Shakleina.

Russia, together with the United States, is trying to form some kind of adequate model of Russian-American interaction “in the context of weakening overall governance of the world system.” The previously existing model was adapted to take into account the interests of the United States, since Russia had long been busy restoring its own strength and was largely dependent on relations with the United States.

Today, many people accuse Russia of being ambitious and intending to compete with the United States. American researcher A. Cohen writes: “...Russia has noticeably tightened its international politics and in achieving goals increasingly relies on force rather than on international law… Moscow has stepped up its anti-American policies and rhetoric and is prepared to challenge US interests wherever and whenever possible, including in the Far North.”

Such statements form the current context of statements about Russia’s participation in world politics. The desire of the Russian leadership to limit the dictates of the United States in all international affairs is obvious, but thanks to this, there is an increase in the competitiveness of the international environment. However, “reducing the intensity of contradictions is possible if all countries, not just Russia, realize the importance of mutually beneficial cooperation and mutual concessions.” It is necessary to develop a new global paradigm further development world community, based on the idea of ​​multi-vector and polycentricity.

Soviet-American dialogue in Geneva. Dissolution of the Department of Internal Affairs and CMEA. Conflicts in the Balkans, Middle and Near East. Integration processes in the world. Formation of the Eurasian Economic Community “EurAsEC”. Declaration on the creation of a Common Economic Space. "Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus." Formation of a multipolar model of world civilization. OSCE Summit 2010 in Astana. Main trends of modern international relations.

Perestroika in the USSR and international relations. In 1985, M.S. was elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Gorbachev. The policy of perestroika proclaimed by the new Soviet leader was also embodied in international relations. Gorbachev’s foreign policy was reduced to unilateral concessions to the West for the sake of establishing the abstract principles of “new political thinking.” Contrary to real state interests, the new Soviet leader set a course for the USSR to leave the Third World, where by 1991 he had lost almost all allies. The United States quickly began to fill this vacuum.

In 1989, there was a massive collapse of the socialist system. The USSR's strategic positions deteriorated catastrophically. The culmination of this process was the unification of the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany. On this issue, the most important for the security of the USSR, M. S. Gorbachev made a unilateral concession to the West.

Resumption of Soviet-American dialogue. In 1985, Soviet-American negotiations took place on top level in Geneva. In 1986 they were continued in the capital of Iceland

Reykjavik, in 1987 in Washington and in 1988 in Moscow. They discussed issues of reducing nuclear weapons. During the bilateral negotiations, it was possible to achieve positive results. Thus, in December 1987, the Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles was signed, and in June 1988, it came into force. It was stated that this marked the beginning of the construction of a world without nuclear weapons. In addition, a rapprochement in the positions of the parties was recorded during the preparation of a joint draft agreement on a 50% reduction in strategic offensive weapons of the USSR and the USA while maintaining the ABM Treaty. The world democratic community was pleased with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989, which was regarded as an important step in the political settlement of regional conflicts.

The Soviet public expected retaliatory steps from the United States. Moreover, the West, in exchange for Gorbachev’s concession on the German issue, promised to transform NATO into a political organization and not expand it to the East. However, all this remained promises. Watching the weakening of Gorbachev's power, the American administration began to fear for the outcome of negotiations to conclude an agreement on the control of strategic weapons with the Soviet Union. In 1991, another Soviet-American meeting took place, during which the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) was signed. It provided for the reduction of Soviet and American nuclear arsenals over 7 years up to 6 thousand units for each side.

After the collapse of the USSR, the problem of reducing strategic offensive weapons was inherited by the Russian Federation. In 1993, the United States and Russia signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II). It prohibited the use of ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. The treaty was ratified by the parliaments of both states, but never came into force. The United States has embarked on the path of deploying a national missile defense system. They explained their position by the increasing danger of missile attacks from “unreliable states.” They included Iraq and the DPRK, which allegedly possessed technologies for the production of missiles of the required class. It became obvious that the United States intended to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty unilaterally. This dealt a blow to Russia’s strategic positions, since it was unable to deploy symmetrical national missile defense programs. Russia became vulnerable to missile attacks from outside.

On November 12, 2001, President V.V. Putin visited the United States, where the issue of missile defense was raised at a meeting with the new President George W. Bush. It was not possible to reach mutual understanding during the visit of the Russian president. However, the United States agreed to conclude a new arms control treaty with Russia. May 24, 2002 during the official visit of President George W. Bush to Russia

this agreement was signed. It was called the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Potentials (SNP). The agreement provided for a reduction by December 31, 2012 of the total number of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 units. The treaty did not stipulate that disabled missiles should be destroyed. This was beneficial to the United States, since they could stockpile missiles being removed from service with the prospect of their return to service. Russia did not have such an opportunity, since the storage period for its missiles expired in 2012. And therefore, in order to avoid self-explosion, the warheads had to be destroyed. Despite this, the SNP agreement was ratified by the Russian Duma in May 2003 in the expectation that the United States would take a reciprocal step. However, this did not happen. On June 14, 2002, the United States withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty. In response, Russia withdrew from START II.

In subsequent years, the international situation in the world and on the European continent deteriorated significantly. This was caused primarily by the beginning of NATO's expansion to the East.

At the NATO summit in Prague on November 21-22, 2002, it was decided to invite seven countries to the alliance: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia. After this, the gradual implementation of the planned project began, which could not but cause concern in Russia.

Since 2006, the United States has moved from defensive deterrence to active and sometimes coercive dictatorship. And above all, this policy was directed towards the European continent. The United States announced the expansion of the missile defense system to such Eastern European countries as Poland and Czechoslovakia. This caused a negative reaction from Russia. However, all attempts by the Russian authorities to resolve the problem that arose with the George W. Bush administration, as well as to resolve the more global issue of the elimination of nuclear weapons in general, were unsuccessful. Statements by American politicians different levels in 2007 - 2008 the possibility of eliminating nuclear weapons did not go beyond declarations.

Changing the situation in better side happened after the victory at presidential elections in the US Democratic Party. In March 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Russia. One of the key issues at the meeting between the American Secretary of State and the Russian President was the issue of reducing and limiting strategic offensive weapons. The work done by the American and Russian sides led to the signing by the Russian Federation and the United States

The Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3), which entered into force on February 5, 2011. The world community assessed the treaty as an important step towards ensuring nuclear security.

Dissolution of the Department of Internal Affairs and CMEA. Well Soviet leadership caused a sharp decline in the authority of the ruling parties of socialist countries, which for a long time oriented their states and peoples towards a close economic, military-political union with the USSR.

However, the processes that engulfed the socialist countries were presented by Soviet propaganda as “the creation of a new situation in Europe.” Official propaganda claimed that there was a constructive dialogue between NATO and the Warsaw Department. On November 19, 1990, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in Paris. It provided for a significant reduction in weapons and troops, established parity between both alliances based on the reasonable sufficiency of the weapons of each side, and eliminated the threat of a surprise attack. At the same time, the heads of state and government of 22 countries - members of the Warsaw Warsaw and NATO - signed a joint declaration proclaiming their intentions to build new relations on the basis of partnership and friendship.

In the spring of 1991, the dissolution of the CMEA and the Department of Internal Affairs was officially formalized. After this, the borders of Eastern European countries were open to the massive penetration of Western European goods and capital.

But the West was not going to limit itself to just this. NATO leaders no longer exclude the possibility of the alliance moving to the East. In addition, the Eastern European countries, freed from Soviet control, began to declare their intention to become members of NATO. The United States and NATO leadership did not exclude the possibility of including not only Eastern European countries in the alliance, but also former Soviet republics, such as the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia. All this did not contribute to improving the international climate in the Eastern European region.

Conflicts in the Balkans, Middle and Near East.

Perestroika in the USSR caused a crisis in socialist countries. It manifested itself most painfully in Yugoslavia, where separatist sentiments began to grow. In June 1991, Slovenia and Croatia announced their secession from the federation and declared their sovereignty. Macedonia followed suit in September, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in April 1992. Serbia, which was the core of the union state, tried to stop its disintegration by force, which led to the escalation of the political conflict into war.

In December, a UN peacekeeping contingent was sent to the conflict zone. However, he was unable to resolve the conflict. This clash revealed the West's double standards policy. The United States blamed the Serbs and the Yugoslav government and turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of the Serb population by Muslims and Croats in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In 1995, the leaders of Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the Bosnian parties signed the Dayton Accords. They stipulated the conditions for resolving the conflict.

Meanwhile, the interethnic situation in the region of Kosovo has worsened. The United States and NATO intervened in the conflict. The President of the FRY S. Milosevic was given an ultimatum, which provided for the introduction of NATO armed forces into the territory of the region. Since the FRY rejected it, in March 1999, NATO aircraft began bombing Serbian territory. Fighting lasted two and a half months. For the first time in its existence, NATO used military force against a sovereign state, violating the UN Charter. On October 6, 2000, S. Milosevic officially renounced power. He was replaced by V. Kostunica, whose arrival contributed to the normalization of relations with Western countries.

In the late 80s and early 90s, the situation in the Middle and Near East worsened. In 1980, the Iran-Iraq war began. It brought untold disasters, destruction and significant loss of life to both sides. In 1988, through the mediation of the UN Secretary General, an agreement was reached to cease hostilities along the entire Iran-Iraq front.

At the end of 1989, Iraq presented a number of demands to the neighboring state of Kuwait regarding oil supplies and territorial issues. On August 2, 1990, the Iraqi army invaded and occupied Kuwait.

The UN Security Council adopted a number of resolutions demanding that Iraq stop its annexation of Kuwait, but Baghdad ignored these calls. On January 17, 1991, the forces of the anti-Iraqi coalition led by

from the United States launched massive air and missile strikes on military installations in Iraq and Kuwait. Area Persian Gulf once again became a zone of destructive war.

In December 1998, the United States, together with England, held military operation against Iraq under the code name “Desert Fox”. The reason for this was the reluctance of the Iraqi government to satisfy a number of demands of UN inspectors who were trying to detect weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

in New York and Washington, when the largest terrorist attacks in history occurred. Using this fact, the United States declared that it now has the right to self-defense in the broadest sense of the word. On March 20, 2003, the United States launched an invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime there.

Integration processes in the world. Second half of the twentieth century. characterized by the strengthening of centripetal forces in world politics. There is a trend towards economic and political integration everywhere. The most successful centripetal processes took place in Europe. In 1949 it was formed European Council, which aimed to promote the protection of human rights, the spread of parliamentary democracy, the establishment of the rule of law and the development contractual relations between European countries. In 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was created, which included France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg). In 1957, these countries concluded the Rome Agreements establishing the ECSC.

The European Economic Community (EEC), within which supranational structures began to form, which implied the integration of the entire economic system of the participating countries.

In 1973, the EEC expanded. It included Great Britain, Ireland, Denmark. Since 1978, members of the association began to hold direct elections to the European Parliament. Later, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Sweden and Finland joined the community. All these processes created the conditions for the transition to a new stage of European integration - the creation European Union(EU). In 1992, the Maastricht Agreement was signed in Holland. It provided for agreements in the field of: 1) economics; 2) foreign policy and security; 3) justice and internal affairs. A common unit of account for EU members was introduced, which was initially called the ECU, and then was renamed the euro.

Since 1975, regular meetings of the so-called “Big Seven”, which includes leaders of the leading industrial countries of the world, have been held. In 2002, the G7 became the G8 with the addition of Russia. At the G8 meetings, economic, political and military-strategic issues are discussed.

Integration processes have covered not only Europe, but also other regions. In 1948, 29 Latin American states and the United States formed the Organization American states(OAS). In 1963, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was created, which subsequently included 53 African countries. In 1967 in South-East Asia The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was created. It included Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. In 1989, the Asia-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) was formed.

In 1994, the President of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev came up with the idea of ​​creating Eurasian Union(EAS) in the post-Soviet space. He emphasized that “the EAC is a form of integration of sovereign states in order to strengthen stability and security, socio-economic modernization in the post-Soviet space.” However, it was not possible to fully implement the project of the Kazakh president then due to the negative attitude of the Russian Federation.

One of the first integration steps in the post-Soviet space was the proposal to create a Customs Union. It came into force on January 20, 1995. The Agreement on Customs Union signed by the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Belarus and Russian Federation. On October 10, 2000, in Astana, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan signed the Education Agreement

Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC). In January 2010, the Law on the Customs Union came into force in Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.

On December 9, 2010, the leaders of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus adopted the Declaration on the formation of the Common Economic Space of the three countries. According to Russian President D. A. Medvedev, the model of integration of the economies of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan should be extended to all EurAsEC states.

In 1996, in Shanghai, at the first meeting of the leaders of Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, the “Shanghai Five” was created - a periodically held meeting of the leaders of five states at the highest level to discuss problems of border cooperation.

In 1998, a meeting of the heads of state of the Shanghai Five took place in Almaty, which resulted in the signing of a Joint Statement by the meeting participants. The document provided for expanded cooperation at the level of heads of government, state and foreign ministers. In 2000, the next meeting of the heads of state of the Shanghai Five took place in Dushanbe. The President of Uzbekistan I. Karimov took part in it for the first time. The meeting participants signed the Dushanbe Declaration, which emphasized the desire of the parties present to transform the Shanghai Five into a regional structure of multilateral cooperation in various fields. The Shanghai Five was renamed the Shanghai Forum.

On June 15, 2001, a meeting of the heads of state of the Shanghai Forum was held in Shanghai with the participation of the presidents of Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, during which the Declaration on the establishment Shanghai organization cooperation (SCO).

On June 15, 2006, a meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of State was held in Shanghai, at which the results of the organization’s five-year activities were summed up. The adopted declaration noted that “the declaration of the creation of the SCO five years ago in Shanghai was an important strategic choice made by all member states in the face of the challenges and threats of the 21st century in order to establish lasting peace and promote continuous development in the region.”

The next meeting of SCO leaders took place in August 2007 in Bishkek. During it, a multilateral agreement on long-term good neighborliness, friendship and cooperation was signed. The President of Turkmenistan G. Berdymukhammedov took part in the Bishkek summit as a guest for the first time. The next meeting of the SCO member countries took place on October 16, 2009 in Beijing. It ended with the signing of documents on issues of culture, education and health care. On June 10 - 11, 2010, the heads of the SCO member countries held their next meeting in Tashkent.

Formation of a new system of international relations. Contours of a multipolar world. Camber Soviet Union and the socialist system influenced the entire system of international relations in the world. The Cold War ended and the process of forming a new world order began. The United States tried to create a unipolar world, but it is becoming obvious that they cannot do it. US allies are beginning to pursue an increasingly independent policy. Today, three centers of world politics are already making themselves known: the USA, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Thus, the world in the 21st century. is being formed as a multipolar model of world civilization.

In December 2010, the OSCE summit took place in Astana. The result of his work was the adoption of the Declaration “Towards a Security Community”. Addressing the summit participants, President of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev noted that the adoption of the declaration opens new stage in the life of the organization, and expressed hope that the declaration will give a start to the construction of a Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community.

At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. New phenomena have emerged in international relations and foreign policy of states.

Firstly, globalization has begun to play a significant role in the transformation of international processes.

Globalization (from the French global - universal) is the process of expanding and deepening the interdependence of the modern world, the formation of a unified system of financial, economic, socio-political and cultural relations based on the latest means of computer science and telecommunications.

The process of unfolding globalization reveals that, to a large extent, it presents new, favorable opportunities, primarily for the most powerful countries, consolidates a system of unfair redistribution of the planet's resources in their interests, and contributes to the spread of the attitudes and values ​​of Western civilization to all regions of the globe. In this regard, globalization represents Westernization, or Americanization, which is followed by the implementation of American interests in various regions of the globe. As the modern English researcher J. Gray points out, global capitalism as a movement towards free markets is not a natural process, but rather a political project based on American power. This, in fact, is not hidden by American theorists and politicians. Thus, G. Kissinger, in one of his latest books, states: “Globalization views the world as a single market in which the most efficient and competitive prosper. It accepts - and even welcomes the fact that the free market will ruthlessly separate the efficient from the inefficient, even at the cost of economic and political upheavals." This understanding of globalization and the corresponding behavior of the West gives rise to opposition in many countries of the world, public protests, including in Western countries (the movement of anti-globalists and alter-globalists). The growth of opponents of globalization confirms the growing need to create international norms and institutions that give it a civilized character.

Secondly, in the modern world the trend of growth in the number and activity of subjects of international relations is becoming increasingly obvious. In addition to the increase in the number of states due to the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia, various international organizations are increasingly entering the international arena.

As is known, international organizations are divided into interstate or intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Currently, there are more than 250 intergovernmental organizations operating in the world. A significant role among them belongs to the UN and such organizations as the OSCE, Council of Europe, WTO, IMF, NATO, ASEAN, etc. The United Nations, created in 1945, has become the most important institutional mechanism for the multifaceted interaction of various states in order to maintain peace and security, promoting the economic and social progress of peoples. Today its members are more than 190 states. The main bodies of the UN are the General Assembly, the Security Council and a number of other councils and institutions. The General Assembly consists of UN member states, each of which has one vote. The decisions of this body do not have coercive force, but they have significant moral authority. The Security Council consists of 15 members, five of which - Great Britain, China, Russia, the USA, France - are permanent members, the other 10 are elected by the General Assembly for a period of two years. Security Council decisions are taken by a majority vote, with each permanent member having the right of veto. In the event of a threat to peace, the Security Council has the authority to send a peacekeeping mission to the relevant region or apply sanctions against the aggressor, authorize military operations aimed at stopping the violence.

Since the 1970s The so-called "G7", an informal organization of the leading countries of the world - Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, the USA, France, Japan - began to play an increasingly active role as an instrument for regulating international relations. These countries coordinate their positions and actions on international issues at annual meetings. In 1991, USSR President M. S. Gorbachev was invited to the G7 meeting as a guest, then Russia began to regularly participate in the work of this organization. Since 2002, Russia has become a full participant in the work of this group and the “Group of Seven” began to be called the “Group of Eight”. In recent years, leaders of the 20 most powerful economies in the world (the G20) have begun to gather to discuss, first of all, crisis phenomena in the global economy.

In the conditions of post-bipolarity and globalization, the need to reform many interstate organizations is increasingly emerging. In this regard, the issue of reforming the UN is now being actively discussed in order to give its work greater dynamics, efficiency and legitimacy.

In the modern world there are about 27 thousand non-governmental international organizations. The growth of their numbers and increasing influence on world events became especially noticeable in the second half of the 20th century. Along with such well-known organizations as the International Red Cross, the International Olympic Committee, Doctors Without Borders, etc., in recent decades, with the increase in environmental problems, the environmental organization Greenpeace has gained international authority. However, it should be noted that the international community is increasingly concerned about the growing illegal organizations - terrorist organizations, drug trafficking and pirate groups.

Thirdly, in the second half of the 20th century. International monopolies, or transnational corporations (TNCs), began to acquire enormous influence on the world stage. These include enterprises, institutions and organizations whose goal is to make a profit, and which operate through their branches simultaneously in several states. The largest TICs have enormous economic resources, which give them advantages not only over small, but even over large powers. At the end of the 20th century. there were more than 53 thousand TNCs in the world.

Fourthly, the trend in the development of international relations has been the increase in global threats, and, accordingly, the need to solve them jointly. Global threats facing humanity can be divided into traditional and new. Among the new challenges to the world order are international terrorism and drug trafficking, lack of control over transnational financial communications, etc. Traditional ones include: the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the threat of nuclear war, problems of environmental conservation, the depletion of many natural resources in the near future, and growing social contrasts. Thus, in the context of globalization, many social problems are intensifying and moving to the level of planetary ones. The world order is increasingly threatened by the deepening gap in the living standards of the peoples of developed and developing countries. Approximately 20% of the world's population currently consumes, according to the UN, about 90% of all goods produced in the world, the remaining 80% of the population is content with 10% of the goods produced. Less developed countries regularly face mass diseases and famines, which result in the death of large numbers of people. Recent decades have been marked by an increase in the flow of cardiovascular and cancer diseases, the spread of AIDS, alcoholism, and drug addiction.

Humanity has not yet found reliable ways to solve problems that threaten international stability. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a need for decisive progress towards reducing the urgent contrasts in the political and socio-economic development of the peoples of the Earth, otherwise the future of the planet seems rather gloomy.

The modern stage of international relations is characterized by the rapidity of change and new forms of distribution of power. The confrontation between the two superpowers - the USSR and the USA - is a thing of the past. The old system of international relations, which was called bipolar, has collapsed.

In the process of breaking old and building new international relations, a certain development trend can still be identified.

First trend

development of modern international relations - dispersal of power. The process of becoming a multipolar (multipolar) world is underway. Today, new centers are acquiring an increasingly important role in international life. Japan, which is already an economic superpower today, is increasingly entering the world arena. They're coming integration processes in Europe. New post-industrial states have emerged in Southeast Asia - the so-called “Asian Tigers”. There is reason to believe that in the foreseeable future China will assert itself in world politics.

There is still no consensus among political scientists about the future of the system of international relations. Some are inclined to believe that a system of collective leadership in the United States, Western Europe and Japan is currently being formed. Other researchers believe that the United States should be recognized as the sole world leader.

The second trend

The development of modern international relations has become their globalization (Oiobe - globe), which consists in the internationalization of the economy, the development of a unified system of world communications, changes and weakening of the functions of the national state, and the intensification of the activities of transnational non-state entities. On this basis, an increasingly interdependent and holistic world is being formed; interactions in it have taken on a systemic character, when more or less serious changes in one part of the world inevitably have an echo in other parts of it, regardless of the will and intentions of the participants in such processes.

In the international field, this trend is realized in the form of an explosive growth of international cooperation, the influence of international institutions - political, economic, humanitarian - as well as the creation of essentially supranational bodies.

The third trend

development of international relations has increased global problems, the desire of the world's states to jointly solve them.

The scientific and technological revolution, which began in the middle of the 20th century, over the course of several decades made such radical changes in the development of productive forces that the thousand-year achievements of our predecessors pale in comparison. It contributed to a sharp increase in labor productivity and led to a huge increase in the products needed by people. But there is another side to this revolution: many extraordinary, so-called global problems have arisen. These problems confronted humanity and showed that our turbulent and full of contradictions world is at the same time an interconnected, interdependent and largely integral world. A world that requires not disunity and confrontation, but the unification of the efforts of all countries and peoples in the name of preserving civilization, its enhancement and the well-being of both the current and future generations of people.

Global problems facing humanity can be divided into four groups: political, economic, environmental, social.

The most important of them, the first to make humanity first feel and then understand the impending threat, is the emergence, rapid accumulation and improvement of weapons of mass destruction, which radically changed the situation in the world. The nature of nuclear weapons does not allow any state to ensure the reliability of its defense by military means. In other words, security in the world can only be achieved through joint efforts. It can either be common to all countries, or it cannot exist at all. Positive changes in relations between the leading countries of the world, which have the greatest scientific, economic and military-technical potential and have taken a significant step towards realizing the danger of the arms race, have relieved former tensions in international relations.

An important issue international terrorism is becoming a concern for all humanity, among various forms the most dangerous of which is state terrorism.

Another, no less important, but much more difficult to solve group of environmental problems includes problems of environmental conservation. The danger of disturbing the ecological balance did not arise immediately. It was approaching gradually, sometimes as a result of ignorance, and most often because of people’s disregard for the possible harmful and even disastrous consequences of their practical activities.

The problem of environmental conservation is organically connected with a sharp increase in human economic activity, caused by natural trends in social development: an increase in the population, its desire for progress, improvement of material well-being, etc.

Excessive, reckless exploitation of nature by humans has led to massive deforestation and deterioration in the quality of resources fresh water, pollution of seas, lakes, rivers, disruption of the ozone layer, which poses a danger to human life. The proportion of carbon dioxide in the air increases. Others' emissions are increasing chemical compounds(nitrogen oxides, sulfur), the consequence of which is “acid rain”. The global climate is warming, leading to the so-called “greenhouse effect.” The Chernobyl disaster became a clear indicator of environmental pollution.

Uncontrolled economic activity of people is dangerous because of its consequences, which do not know state borders and do not recognize any barriers. This obliges all countries and peoples to join efforts aimed at protecting and improving the environment.

Ecological problems closely interconnected with economic ones. This is, first of all, with the problems of growth of social production, and the resulting increase in the need for energy and raw materials. Natural resources are not unlimited, and therefore a rational, scientifically based approach to their use is required. However, solving this problem is associated with considerable difficulties. One of them is due to the sharp lag of developing countries in terms of energy consumption per capita from industrialized countries. Another difficulty is caused by the technological imperfection of production in many countries, including Ukraine, as a result of which there is a large overconsumption of raw materials, energy, and fuel per unit of output.

Social problems are also diverse. Recent decades have been marked by growing concern for humanity caused by the flow of dangerous diseases and addictions that have befallen it. Cardiovascular and oncological diseases, AIDS, alcoholism, drug addiction have acquired an international character and have become one of the global problems.

The whole world cannot help but be alarmed by the widening difference in the living standards of the peoples of developed and developing countries. Underdeveloped countries are often visited by famine, which results in the death of large numbers of people. These problems are also aggravated by the discrepancy in the relationship between demographic growth of the population and the dynamics of the productive forces.

People all over the world are concerned about the increase in crime and the growing influence of mafia structures, including the drug mafia.

Global problems have arisen at the intersection of the relationship between man, society and nature. They are interconnected, and therefore their solution requires integrated approach. The emergence of global problems has affected the entire system of international relations. Efforts aimed at preventing environmental disaster, fighting hunger, disease, and attempts to overcome backwardness cannot yield results if they are decided alone, at the national level, without the participation of the world community. They require a planetary unification of intellectual and material resources.

The fourth trend

modern international relations is the strengthening of the division of the world into two poles. The poles of peace, prosperity and democracy and the poles of war, instability and tyranny. The majority of humanity lives at the pole of instability, where poverty, anarchy and tyranny prevail.

There are 25 countries at the pole of peace, prosperity and democracy: Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. They are home to 15% of the world's population, the so-called “golden

The global scale and radicality of the changes taking place today in the political, economic, spiritual spheres of life of the world community, in the sphere of military security allow us to put forward the assumption of the formation of a new system of international relations, different from those that have functioned throughout the last century, and in many ways 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, the composition of participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that international (interstate) relations proper arose during the formation of national states in the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The starting point is the end of the “Thirty Years' War” in Europe and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. 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 final arbiter in the system, so states are independent in conducting domestic policy within their national borders and in principle equal in rights. Sovereignty presupposes non-interference in each other's affairs. Over time, states developed a set of rules governing international relations based on these principles - international law.
Most scholars agree that the main driving force of the Westphalian system of international relations was rivalry between states: some sought to increase their influence, while others sought to prevent this. Conflicts between states were determined by the fact that national interests, perceived as vitally important 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 into which they entered to realize their foreign policy goals. The establishment of equilibrium, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations; a 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, naturally, with a great deal of simplification, this system is compared with the movement of billiard balls. States collide with each other, forming changing configurations, and then move again in an endless struggle for influence or security. The main principle in this case is one’s own benefit. 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 specific period of relations between states. Usually, historians identify 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 scientists define it, the Yalta-Potsdam system. It is obvious that in the second half of the 80s - early 90s of the XX century. There have been fundamental changes in international relations that allow us to talk about the end of the Cold War and the formation of new system-forming patterns. The main question today is what these patterns are, what are the specifics of the new stage in comparison with 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 fall of 1989 as the watershed between the Cold War and the current stage of international relations, and consider the fall of the Berlin Wall to be its clear symbol. 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. This definition focuses attention on what is missing in the current period compared to the previous one. The obvious distinctive features of the system emerging today in comparison with the previous one are the removal of the political-ideological confrontation between “anti-communism” and “communism” due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the winding down of the military confrontation of the blocs grouped during the Cold War around two poles - Washington and Moscow. This definition also inadequately reflects new essence world politics, as in its time the formula “after the Second World War” did not reveal a new quality of the emerging patterns of the Cold War. Therefore, when analyzing today's international relations and trying to forecast their development, one should pay attention to qualitatively new processes emerging under the influence of changed conditions of international life.
IN Lately Increasingly, one can hear pessimistic complaints that the new international situation is less stable, predictable and even more dangerous than in previous decades. Indeed, the clear contrasts of the Cold War are clearer than the variety of undertones of the new international relations. In addition, the Cold War is already a thing of the past, an era that has become the object of leisurely study by historians, and the 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 even more complicated if, when analyzing the future, we proceed from the patterns that characterized the past system. This is partly confirmed by the fact that
It is a fact that, essentially, 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.