International relations according to Tsygankov. Russia in global politics. Tsygankov P. Political sociology of international relations

"Theory international relations"Tsygankova is a landmark scientific work in its field. What are the features of this manual, and what makes it unique and significant for the academic community? These and some other questions will be discussed in this article.

Lack of specialized literature

Under the title "Theory of International Relations" two books were published, complementing each other - a textbook and an anthology. Both of these works have similar sections. Therefore, students studying the theory of international relations on them do not need to waste extra time searching for materials in various sources.

Despite the fact that in our country for a long time there have been numerous institutions that train specialists in the field of international relations, the shortage of benefits for students of these universities today is felt quite strongly. Why are there so few textbooks in Russia like Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations”?

The fact is that, despite the long history of teaching this subject, very few textbooks and anthologies have been published that discuss the works of the most significant researchers working in this field.

In the USSR, for several decades, there were institutes such as MGIMO, the Institute of Friendship of Peoples, and the Moscow Institute of International Relations also trained specialists in this field. State University and some other educational institutions. Nevertheless, the theory of international relations was taught in that era rather one-sidedly. Political, social, cultural and other aspects of the issue remained, as a rule, outside the zone of attention. International relations were viewed only from a historical perspective points of view.

Bourgeois literature

Also, in Soviet times, almost no anthologies were published that would present the most important works of international relations scholars, such as Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations.” The peculiarity of this book is that, unlike other similar manuals of previous years, many works of scientists who were previously considered “bourgeois” were published in it. That is, their creators either adhered to political views that the leadership recognized as alien to our people, or directly or covertly criticized the actions of the government of the Soviet Union. The publication of such works became possible only in the nineties of the twentieth century, after the completion of perestroika.

Until this time, many books by leading experts on international relations were not only not translated into Russian, but were also unavailable even in the original to visitors to the country's largest libraries.

Expanding your horizons

It is known that in the theory of international relations there are several directions or schools, the teachings of which are sometimes fundamentally different from each other. We can name as an example such ones as realism, neorealism, idealism, transnationalism, and so on. During the Soviet period of development of domestic science about relations between peoples and states, realism was considered the main and only correct trend. This direction relies in its research mainly on historical data on such global processes as wars, political crises, revolutions, and so on.

Speaking about the theories of the directions of international relations, Tsygankov considers not only the works of representatives of this movement, but also the works of scientists who are adherents of other major schools. Such consideration of various literature on this issue enriches students’ horizons and allows them to look at the current international situation from different points of view.

Such a comprehensive study of the issue is also useful not only for future specialists planning to conduct research work in this field, but also for teachers. It is also useful for those people who carry out practical activities in the field of international relations: diplomats, politicians, and so on.

Information society

Tsygankov P. A. in “The Theory of International Relations” cites excerpts from the works of scientists belonging to various scientific groups. The need for such an approach to compiling a manual can be realized by considering the following example. Currently, according to some economists and sociologists, many countries of the world have risen to a new stage of development. They moved from the industrial stage of society to the information stage.

With such a social formation, most people are not engaged in the production of material assets, but in the creation and processing of information. This change could not but affect such global processes as wars, revolutions, and so on. In addition to armed conflicts, there are now others, such as information ones. In the realistic direction of the theory of international relations, these modern trends are almost not taken into account, while they are considered by representatives of other schools.

Author's opinion

Tsygankov in “The Theory of International Relations” explains the criteria for selecting literature as follows. The author cites an important historical fact: the first works in this area were written by English scientists at the beginning of the twentieth century. After this, England maintained a leading position in the number of publications on this topic for several years. Over time, this primacy passed to the United States of America. This is explained by a number of reasons.

The main one is the great interest of the government of a given country in theoretical research in the field of international relations. One of the scientists said that a good theory always has great practical significance. Apparently, the American government adheres to similar considerations, allocating significant funds for research.

Therefore, the compilation of Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations” (reader) was mainly made using English and American literature. The author himself says that he admits the possibility of criticism of this choice. According to him, some representatives of the scientific community will undoubtedly talk about the need to include in the anthology the works of scientists who do not belong to representatives of the English and American schools. But in his opinion, it is more correct to talk not about the nationality of this or that author, but about the relevance of his work at the present time.

Tsygankov in “The Theory of International Relations” argues that there is a lot of literature on this topic, which is considered an absolute classic. But a significant part of it has lost its relevance due to the fact that many of the problems that were considered in it have now been solved. Of course, these works can be included in the anthology, but only as part of the history of this branch of knowledge.

Domestic science

In our country, the theory of international relations in its modern version is a relatively young discipline. The formation of individual scientific schools within its framework is only at the initial stage. Meanwhile, the completion of such a process is necessary for the development of the theory and practice of international relations. Moreover, today institutes involved in training specialists in this field exist not only in Moscow and St. Petersburg. There are several dozen of them throughout the country. This means that it is impossible to overestimate the importance of Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations” and other similar literature.

Need in large quantities specialists in this field began to be felt much more strongly when connections with other states began to be carried out not only at the national, but also at the regional level. Along with this, a number of questions arose, many of which today remain open. For example, in Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations” the concept of this discipline is not clearly formulated.

Instead, this book presents several points of view on this matter, each of which belongs to supporters of a scientific paradigm. For example, adherents of the realist school believe that international relations are only connections between states, but not between peoples. Other scientists believe that this concept is last years began to cover also some elements domestic policy countries

Universal and national approach

The anthology “Theory of International Relations,” edited by Professor Tsygankov, is often criticized due to the predominance of material written by English-language authors. The compiler of this book himself says that every such work is doomed to such attacks. After all, any selection of several works from the entire diversity of world literature will certainly seem to someone unjustified and subjective. Most often, Professor Tsygankov is reproached for insufficient attention to the achievements of domestic science.

However, in the textbook the professor also examines the situation in Russia. Among other things, he cites the following facts.

In our country, there are often intense debates between scientists about whether it is worth discovering universal principles in the theory of international relations that can be applied to all countries of the world, regardless of their political, religious, cultural and other characteristics. Some researchers are of the opinion that these individual characteristics of each state must certainly be reflected in scientific theories.

The chapter of the textbook “Theory of International Relations” by Tsygankov is devoted to the consideration of these two points of view.

This circumstance can be considered one of the merits of the book, since the importance of cultural factors in the field of foreign policy was recognized by some prominent people back in the Middle Ages. It is known that Genghis Khan was sensitive to the traditions and customs of the peoples he conquered. According to the chroniclers of that time, he celebrated the holidays of the states under his control.

Features of Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations”

In the introductory article to the anthology, Professor Lebedeva gives the following description of it.

The book consists of three parts. The first of them presents articles by the most prominent representatives various directions in the theory of international relations. Realism, neorealism, idealism and transnationalism are studied in it using the example of the classic works of each school. In the second section, the compiler placed works covering the history of the development of this scientific discipline.

In the third part of Tsygankov’s anthology “Theory of International Relations” you can find materials devoted to a review of the situation in the international political arena in different years, as well as an analysis of the events described. Thus, the reader, as he studies the contents of this book, moves from consideration general issues to more specific ones.

In the textbook, some chapters are devoted to consideration of the basic concepts and features of trends in the theory of international relations. Other sections deal with issues of war, peace, cultural interactions, and so on. That is, the applied significance of the theory is shown.

This concept helps to obtain a fairly complete picture of knowledge on a given subject. The book can be useful both to political scientists and specialists in other fields for whom international relations are part of their professional interests. Thus, this manual may be of interest to scientists working on problems of philosophy, psychology, history and some other sciences. Studying the theory of international relations according to Tsygankov is made quite comfortable by the fact that each of the materials included in the textbook and anthology is provided with comments by the compiler, which contribute to a better understanding of these works.

Therefore, on various websites dedicated to educational literature, you can often find positive reviews of Tsygankov’s “Theory of International Relations”.

about the author

Pavel Afanasyevich Tsygankov is a professor at Moscow State University.

He is one of the founders of the Department of Sociology of International Relations at this educational institution. IN next year will mark thirty years since its opening. Twenty of them, the department was headed by Pavel Afanasyevich Tsygankov. During this time, he was a supervisor in the writing of more than two dozen candidate dissertations and two works for a doctorate. The professor also lectured at many educational institutions abroad.

For his work, the scientist has repeatedly received domestic and foreign awards and prizes, including for his teaching aids on international relations.

The book to which this article is devoted deserves the interest of readers not only because of a significant selection of bright articles that allow us to trace the development of this industry, but also because of the succinct comments of the compiler. They help to understand the place of each individual material in the context of the whole research activities this or that author.

This publication was published in thousands of copies. This event, of course, is a great achievement of domestic education. Indeed, recently, with an ever-increasing number of higher educational institutions Where the theory of international relations is taught (there are currently more than four hundred of them), there is an acute shortage of such literature. Some books on this discipline are published only in small editions by local publishers. Often, teachers are forced to recommend books for students to study that were published several decades ago. Such textbooks are, of course, outdated, since they were published in an era when socialist ideology dominated the country.

From its perspective, all the laws and concepts of the theory of international relations in such manuals are considered. In addition to Tsygankov’s anthology, students can also be recommended to read the author’s articles, which are regularly published in scientific journals. In 2018, two of his works devoted to problems of world order were published. In them, the author analyzes the most significant works of international relations scholars devoted to this topic. One of the mentioned articles was published in the journal “Russia in Global Affairs”, and the second in the Bulletin

Conclusion

This article presented short description textbook and anthology by P. A. Tsygankov “Theory of International Relations. This manual is one of the most popular of its kind. It provides the basic concepts of the academic discipline indicated in the title, and also provides excerpts from the most significant works of researchers working in this field .

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

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

Thus, some of them are based on geographical criteria, highlighting Anglo-Saxon concepts, Soviet and Chinese understanding of international relations, as well as the approach to their study of authors representing the “Third World” (8).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of various classifications of modern theories of international relations could be continued. It is important, however, to note at least three significant circumstances. Firstly, any of such classifications is conditional and is not able to exhaust the diversity of theoretical views and methodological approaches to the analysis of international relations1. Secondly, the indicated diversity does not mean that modern theories managed to overcome its “blood relationship” with the three main paradigms discussed above. Finally, thirdly, contrary to the contrary opinion that still occurs today, there is every reason to talk about an emerging synthesis, mutual enrichment, mutual “compromise” between previously irreconcilable directions.

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

“However, they do not set themselves such a goal. Their goal is different - to understand the state and theoretical level achieved by the science of international relations, by summarizing the existing conceptual approaches and comparing them with what has been done previously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In most textbooks on international relations published in the West, idealism as an independent theoretical direction is either not considered or serves as nothing more than a “critical background” in the analysis of political realism and other theoretical directions.

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

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

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

through the UN. Projects for harmonizing national interests through the creation of a world community or a world state are also utopian. The only way, allowing us to hope to avoid a world nuclear war - renewal of diplomacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The theory of political realism is based on a pluralistic concept of human nature. A real man- this is an “economic man”, and a “moral man”, and a “religious man”, etc. Only the “political man” is like an animal, because he has no “moral brakes”. Only a “moral man” is a fool, because... he lacks caution. Only

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

^Thinking about this, political realism defends the relative autonomy of these aspects and insists that the knowledge of each of them requires abstraction from the others and occurs in its own terms.

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

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

However, political realism has not become the undivided dominant paradigm in the science of international relations. Its transformation into a central link, cementing the beginning of a unified theory, was hampered from the very beginning by its serious shortcomings.

The fact is that, based on the understanding of international relations as a “natural state” of forceful confrontation for the possession of power, political realism essentially reduces these relations to interstate relations, which significantly impoverishes their understanding. Moreover, the domestic and foreign policies of the state in the interpretation of political realists look like they are not connected with each other, and the states themselves - like a kind of interchangeable mechanical bodies, with an identical reaction to external influences. The only difference is that some states are strong and others are weak. It is not without reason that one of the influential adherents of political realism, A. Wolfers, built a picture of international relations, comparing the interaction of states on the world stage with the collision of balls on a billiard table (21). Absolutizing the role of force and underestimating the importance of other factors, such as spiritual values, sociocultural realities, etc., significantly impoverishes the analysis of international relations and reduces the degree of its reliability. This is all the more true since the content of such key concepts for the theory of political realism as “power” and “national interest” remains quite vague in it, giving rise to debate and ambiguous interpretation. Finally, in its desire to rely on the eternal and unchanging objective laws of international interaction, political realism has essentially become a hostage to its own approach. They did not take into account very important trends and changes that have already occurred, which increasingly determine the nature of modern international relations from those that dominated the international arena until the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, one more circumstance was missed: the fact that these changes require the use, along with traditional ones, of new methods and means of scientific analysis of international relations. All this caused criticism in hell

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

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

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

international relations, denying both any “metaphysical prejudices” and conclusions based, like Marxism, on deterministic hypotheses. However, as M. Merle emphasizes (see: 16, pp. 91-92), this approach does not mean that one can do without a global explanatory hypothesis. The study of natural phenomena has developed two opposing models, between which specialists in the field of social sciences also hesitate. On the one hand, this is the teaching of Charles Darwin about the ruthless struggle of species and the law natural selection and its Marxist interpretation. On the other hand, there is the organic philosophy of G. Spencer, which is based on the concept of constancy and stability of biological and social phenomena. Positivism in the USA followed the second path - the path of likening society to a living organism, whose life is based on the differentiation and coordination of its various functions. From this point of view, the study of international relations, like any other type public relations, should begin with an analysis of the functions performed by their participants, then moving on to the study of interactions between their carriers and, finally, to the problems associated with the adaptation of a social organism to its environment. In the heritage of organicism, M. Merle believes, two trends can be distinguished. One of them pays main attention to the study of the behavior of characters, the other - articulation various types such behavior. Accordingly, the first gave rise to behaviorism, and the second to functionalism and the systems approach in the science of international relations (see: ibid., p. 93).

Having been a reaction to the shortcomings of traditional methods of studying international relations used in the theory of political realism, modernism did not become any homogeneous movement - neither in theoretical nor in methodological terms. What he has in common is mainly his commitment to an interdisciplinary approach, the desire to apply rigorous scientific methods and procedures, to an increase in the number of verifiable empirical data. Its shortcomings consist in the actual denial of the specifics of international relations, the fragmentation of specific research objects, which determines the virtual absence of a holistic picture of international relations, and the inability to avoid subjectivity. Nevertheless, many studies by adherents of the modernist trend turned out to be very fruitful, enriching science not only with new techniques, but also with very significant

our conclusions drawn on their basis. It is also important to note the fact that they opened up the prospect of a microsociological paradigm in the study of international relations.

If the debate between adherents of modernism and political realism concerned mainly methods of studying international relations, then representatives of transnationalism (Robert O. Koohane, Joseph Nye), integration theories (David Mitrany) and interdependence (Ernst Haas, David Mo-urs) criticized the very conceptual foundations of the classical school. At the center of the new “great dispute” that flared up in the late 60s and early 70s was the role of the state as a participant in international relations, the importance of national interest and strength for understanding the essence of what is happening on the world stage.

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

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

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

Transnationalism has contributed to the awareness of a number of new phenomena in international relations, so many of the provisions of this trend continue to be developed by its supporters in the 90s. (24). At the same time, it was marked by its undoubted ideological kinship with classical idealism with its inherent tendencies to overestimate the real significance of the observed trends in changing the nature of international relations. Some similarity between the provisions put forward by transnationalism and a number of provisions defended by the neo-Marxist movement in the science of international relations is also noticeable.

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

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

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

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

In the seventies, a similar approach to the consideration of international relations became the basis for the Third World countries for the idea of the need to establish a new world economic order. Under pressure from these countries, which constitute the majority of member countries of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly adopted a corresponding declaration and program of action in April 1974, and in December of the same year, the Charter on the Economic Rights and Responsibilities of States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

due to its own advantages than to the heterogeneity and weakness of any other theory. And the desire to maintain maximum continuity with the classical school means that most of its inherent shortcomings remain the lot of neorealism (see: 14, pp. 300, 302). An even more severe sentence is passed by the French authors M.-C. Smooey and B. Badie, according to whom the theories of international relations, remaining captive of the Western-centric approach, were unable to reflect the radical changes taking place in the world system, as well as “to predict either accelerated decolonization in the post-war period, or outbreaks of religious fundamentalism, or the end of cold war, nor the collapse of the Soviet empire. In short, nothing that relates to sinful social reality” (31).

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

3. French sociological school

Most of the works published in the world devoted to the study of international relations still today bear the undoubted stamp of the predominance of American traditions. At the same time, it is also indisputable that since the beginning of the 80s, the influence of European theoretical thought, and in particular the French school, has become increasingly noticeable in this area. One of the famous scientists, Sorbonne professor M. Merle, noted in 1983 that in France, despite the relative youth of the discipline studying international relations, three major directions have formed. One of them is guided by the “empirical-descriptive approach” and is represented by the works of such authors as Charles Zorgbib, Serge Dreyfus, Philippe Moreau-Defargue and others. The second is inspired by the Marxist principles on which Pierre-François Gonidek, Charles Chaumont and their followers at the School are based Nancy and Reims. Finally, distinctive feature The third direction is the sociological approach, which received its most vivid embodiment in the works of R. Aron (32).

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

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

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

“Durkheim’s sociology,” writes R. Aron in his memoirs, “did not touch me either as a metaphysician, which I aspired to become, or as a reader of Proust who wanted to understand the tragedy and comedy of people living in society” (34). “Neo-Durkheimism,” he argued, is something like Marxism in reverse: while the latter describes class society in terms of the omnipotence of the dominant ideology and downplays the role of moral authority, the former expects to give morality its lost superiority over minds. However, denying the presence of a dominant ideology in society is the same utopia as the ideologization of society. Different classes cannot separate

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

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

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

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

At the same time, Aron does not abandon the desire to determine the place of sociology in the study of international relations. In his seminal work, Peace and War Among Nations, he identifies four aspects of such study, which he describes in the corresponding sections of this book: “Theory,” “Sociology,” “History,” and “Praxeology” (36).

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

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

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

It is impossible to answer these questions, Aron continues, without turning to historical research: one must monitor the progress of specific matches, changes in techniques, and the variety of techniques and temperaments. A sociologist must constantly turn to both theory and history. If he does not understand the logic of the game, then he will in vain follow the actions of the players and will not be able to understand the meaning of the tactical design of a particular game. In the section on history, Aron describes the characteristics of the world system and its subsystems, analyzes various models of deterrence strategies in the nuclear age, and traces the evolution of diplomatic

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

Finally, in the fourth part, dedicated to praxeology, another symbolic character appears - the arbiter. How should we interpret the provisions written in the rules of the game? Did a violation of the rules actually occur under certain conditions? Moreover, if the referee “judges” the players, then the players and spectators, in turn, silently or noisily, inevitably “judge” the referee himself, the players of one team “judge” both their partners and rivals, etc. All these judgments oscillate between an assessment of performance ("he played well"), an assessment of punishment ("he acted according to the rules") and an assessment of sportsmanship ("this team behaved in accordance with the spirit of the game"). Even in sports, not everything that is not prohibited is morally justified. This is especially true for international relations. Their analysis also cannot be limited only to observation and description, but requires judgments and assessments. Which strategy can be considered moral and which can be considered reasonable or rational? What are the strengths and weaknesses of seeking peace through the rule of law? What are the advantages and disadvantages of trying to achieve it by establishing an empire?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most established provisions and conclusions of the world international political science are generalized and systematized; its basic concepts and the most famous theoretical directions are given; gives an idea of current state this discipline in our country and abroad. Particular attention is paid to the globalization of world development, changes in the nature of threats to international security, and the characteristics of the new generation of conflicts. For students of higher educational institutions studying in the areas and specialties of “International Relations”, “Regions”, “Public Relations”, “Sociology”, “Political Science”, as well as undergraduates, graduate students and university teachers.

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

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

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

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

Still others believe that the main dividing line will be the method used by one or another researcher, and, from this point of view, the main attention is paid to the controversy between representatives of the traditional and “scientific” approaches to the analysis of international relations (11,12)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 The work of G. Morgenthau “It is worth saying - political relations between nations. The struggle for power,” the first edition of which was published in |48, became a kind of “bible” for many generations (D||political scientists both in the USA itself and in other countries ""JSffaaa. From the position of G. Morgenthau, international relations / are an arena of acute confrontation between states. The basis of all international activities of the latter lies in their desire to increase their power, or strength (power) and reduce the power of others. In this case, the term “power” is understood in the broadest sense: as the military and economic power of the state, the guarantee of its greatest security and prosperity, glory and prestige, the opportunity to spread its ideological principles and spiritual values. Two main ways in which the state secures power for itself, and at the same time two complementary aspects of its foreign policy - military strategy and diplomacy. The first of them is interpreted in the spirit of Clausewitz: as the continuation of politics by violent means. Diplomacy, on the contrary, is a peaceful struggle for power. Let us note the fact that in the modern era, says G. Morgenthau, states express their need for power in terms of “national interest.” The result of each state’s desire to maximally satisfy their national interests will be the establishment on the world stage of a certain equilibrium (balance) of power (strength), which will be the only realistic way to ensure and maintain peace. Actually, the state of the world is the state of balance of power between states.

According to Morgenthau, there are two factors that are capable of keeping states' aspirations for power within some framework - international law and morality. At the same time, to trust them too much in an effort to ensure peace between states would mean falling into the unforgivable illusions of the idealistic school. The problem of war and peace has no chance of being resolved through collective security mechanisms or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Note that the theory of political realism is based on a pluralistic concept of human nature. A real person is both an “economic man”, and a “moral man”, and a “religious man”, etc. Only a “political man” is like an animal, since he has no “moral brakes”. Only a “moral man” is a fool, because... he lacks caution. Only

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

^Tryingly, political realism defends the relative autonomy of these aspects and insists that the knowledge of each of them requires abstraction from the others and occurs in its own terms.

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

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

At the same time, political realism has not become the undivided dominant paradigm in the science of international relations. Its transformation into a central link, cementing the beginning of a unified theory, was hampered from the very beginning by its serious shortcomings.

The fact is that, based on the understanding of international relations as a “natural state” of forceful confrontation for the possession of power, political realism, in essence, reduces these relations to interstate ones, which significantly impoverishes their understanding. Moreover, the domestic and foreign policies of the state, in the interpretation of political realists, look like they are not connected with each other, and the states themselves - like a kind of interchangeable mechanical bodies, with an identical reaction to external influences. The only difference is that some states will be strong and others will be weak. It is not without reason that one of the influential adherents of political realism, A. Wolfers, built a picture of international relations, comparing the interaction of states on the world stage with the collision of balls on a billiard table (21) Absolutization of the role of force and underestimation of the importance of other factors, such as spiritual values, sociocultural reality, etc., significantly impoverishes the analysis of international relations and reduces the degree of its reliability. This is all the more true since the content of such key concepts for the theory of political realism as “power” and “national interest” remains quite vague in it, giving rise to debate and ambiguous interpretation. Finally, in this desire to rely on the eternal and unchanging objective laws of international interaction, political realism has essentially become a hostage to its own approach. They did not take into account very important trends and changes that have already occurred, which increasingly determine the nature of modern international relations from those that dominated the international arena until the beginning of the 20th century. It is important to note that at the same time one more circumstance was missed: the fact that these changes require the use, along with traditional ones, of new methods and means scientific analysis international relations. Everything ϶ᴛᴏ caused criticism in hell

more political realism on the part of adherents of other sub-khovs, and, above all, on the part of representatives of the so-called modernist movement and diverse theories of interdependence and integration. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this polemic, which actually accompanied the theory of political realism from its first steps, contributed to an increasing awareness of the need to complement the political analysis of international realities with a sociological one.

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

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

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

Having been a reaction to the shortcomings of traditional methods of studying international relations used in the theory of political realism, modernism did not become any homogeneous movement - neither in theoretical nor in methodological terms. What it has in common will be mainly a commitment to an interdisciplinary approach, a desire to apply rigorous scientific methods and procedures, and to increase the number of verifiable empirical data. Its shortcomings consist in the actual denial of the specifics of international relations, the fragmentation of specific research objects, which determines the virtual absence of a holistic picture of international relations, and the inability to avoid subjectivity. Let us note that, nevertheless, many studies by adherents of the modernist trend turned out to be very fruitful, enriching science not only with new techniques, but also very significantly

our conclusions drawn on their basis. We should not forget that it is also important to note the fact that they opened up the prospect of a microsociological paradigm in the study of international relations.

If the debate between adherents of modernism and political realism concerned mainly methods of studying international relations, then representatives of transnationalism (Robert O. Koohane, Joseph Nye), theories of integration (David Mitrany) and interdependence (Ernst Haas, David Mo-urs) criticized the very conceptual foundations of the classical school. At the center of the new “great dispute” that flared up in the late 60s and early 70s was the role of the state as a participant in international relations, the importance of national interest and strength for understanding the essence of what is happening on the world stage.

Supporters of various theoretical movements, which can be conventionally called “transnationalists,” have put forward a general idea, according to which political realism and its statist paradigm are not consistent with the nature and basic trends of international relations and therefore should be discarded. International relations go far beyond interstate interactions based on national interests and power confrontation. The state, as an international actor, is deprived of its monopoly. In addition to states, individuals, enterprises, organizations, and other non-state associations take part in international relations. The diversity of participants, types (cultural and scientific cooperation, economic exchanges, etc.) and “channels” (partnerships between universities, religious organizations, communities and associations, etc.) of interaction between them, displaces the state from the center of international communication , contribute to the transformation of such communication from “international” (i.e. interstate, if we recall the given logical meaning of this term) into “transnational* (i.e. carried out in addition to and without the participation of states) “Rejection of the prevailing intergovernmental approach and the desire to go beyond interstate interactions led us to think in terms of transnational relations,” American scientists J. Nye and R. Koohei write in the preface to their book “Transnational Relations and World Politics.”

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

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

Transnationalism has contributed to the awareness of a number of new phenomena in international relations, which is why many provisions of this trend continue to be developed by its supporters in the 90s. (24) At the same time, it was marked by its undoubted ideological kinship with classical idealism with its inherent tendencies to overestimate the actual significance of the observed trends in changing the nature of international relations. A certain similarity between the provisions put forward by transnationalism and a number of provisions defended by the neo-Marxist movement in the science of international relations will also be noticeable.

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

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

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

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

In the seventies, a similar approach to the consideration of international relations became the basis for the Third World countries for the idea of the need to establish a new world economic order. Under pressure from these countries, which constitute the majority of member countries of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration and Program of Action in April 1974, and in December of the same year the Charter on the Economic Rights and Responsibilities of States.

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, the systemic nature of international relations is determined, according to K. Waltz, not by the actors interacting here, not by their inherent basic features (related to geographic location, demographic potential, socio-cultural specifics, etc.), but by the properties of the structure of the international system . (For this reason, neorealism is often qualified as structural realism or simply structuralism.) Being a consequence of the interactions of international actors, the structure of the international system at the same time does not amount to a simple sum of such interactions, but represents

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

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

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

distribution of opportunities between existing actors and relations of friendliness or hostility between them. In this case, both one and the other, B. Bazan shows, are subject to manipulation by the great powers.

Using the methodology proposed in this way, the Danish researcher M. Mozaffari used it as the basis for analyzing the structural changes that occurred in the Persian Gulf as a result of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and the subsequent defeat of Iraq by allied (and essentially American) troops (30) As a result, he came to the conclusion about the operationality of structuralism, about its advantages compared to other theoretical directions. With all this, Mozaffari also shows the weaknesses inherent in neorealism, among which he names the provisions on the eternity and immutability of such characteristics of the international system as its “natural state”, the balance of power as a way of stabilization, its inherent static nature (see: ibid., p 81)

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

Theory of international relations in the 21st century. M.: International Relations, 2015.

Work in the field of the theory of international relations (IRT) in Russia does not always meet with understanding and encounters difficulties of an objective nature. There are many who view it as something secondary compared to applied and regional studies. Some are carried away by conspiracy theories that cannot be empirically verified and, when discussing the springs of world politics, tend to express themselves in half-hints. Difficulties in the development of TME also include the weakness of the material and educational base of the still young discipline, the lack of specialists and the relatively low involvement of the Russian academic community in global research projects.

All this is unlikely to help Russia solve large-scale foreign policy problems. The processes of regionalization and cultural and civilizational identification are gaining strength in the world. Russia is increasingly being positioned by politicians as a “civilization state” that must defend its positions in the face of growing competition between great powers for their interests and values. In the global community of international affairs, there is a growing need for the formation of national and regional schools of international relations. The polemic between supporters of universal knowledge and knowledge with cultural and regional specificity is emerging as a new important debate. Even in the United States, which more than others claims to create universal knowledge, congresses of international affairs have been held more than once under the motto of discussing the cultural specifics of theoretical research.

The book by Timofey Bordachev and his co-authors Elena Zinovieva and Anastasia Likhacheva is an important contribution to the development of TMO in Russia. Its publication indicates the emergence among Russian international affairs experts of more clear differences in theoretical positions that were previously present in latent forms. Being a textbook for undergraduates, the book nevertheless clearly indicates an orientation towards the classical realism of Edward Carr, Raymond Aron and Henry Kissiger and the increment of knowledge in the traditions of positivism. The authors fit realism into a broad historical and theoretical context, analyzing a number of classic works from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War to Kenneth Waltz's The Theory of International Politics. A clear designation of positions is intended to facilitate a more active discussion among international experts of the chosen approach, thereby pushing the development of TMO.

The authors' focus on classical realism does not mean that they ignore other approaches. In particular, the textbook pays tribute to the liberal, Marxist and constructivist paradigms. There are chapters devoted to both the great ideological debates in TMO and the structural and critical directions associated with the formation of a systems approach, theories of integration, varieties of world-system analysis, and understanding the significance of socio-cultural norms in international relations. Positioning the book as being in the tradition of classical realism does not mean ignoring other trends within the realist paradigm. In addition to the classical direction, the advantages and weaknesses of the structural directions of realism (neorealism and neoclassical realism) and geopolitics are analyzed.

The undoubted advantages of the book by Bordachev and his co-authors include the clarity of presentation and explanation in accessible language of the advantages of classical realism. These advantages are associated with the analysis of the most dangerous political processes (conflicts and wars), understanding the existing balance of power in world politics and giving priority attention to states, especially great powers, which remain the most important participants in international relations. Whatever may be written today about the growing role of global institutions or non-governmental organizations, the crisis of economic globalization and political order in the world has revealed the importance of interaction between states - the USA, Germany, Russia, China and others - in preventing further destabilization of the world order. Whatever may be said about the decentralization and “hybridization” of violence in the Middle East and Eurasia, it is obvious that it is a consequence of contradictions between states, and its level cannot be reduced without reducing friction and conflicts between states.

Compared to structural trends, classical realism also has a non-reductionist approach to increasing theoretical knowledge. Along with the use of strictly scientific methods and models borrowed from mathematics, the authors of the book, following Nicollo Machiavelli, Hans Morgenthau, Hedley Bull and others, do not abandon a qualitative understanding of the realities of world politics, pay tribute to logic and intuition, and understand that theory, being a system of understanding connections and patterns, is “both the result of analysis and a tool for promoting one’s ideas.” The undoubted successes of the book include the wealth of empirical material, including chronology major events, intellectual portraits of leading international experts, as well as the presence of “cases” (from the English case-studies), serving as an illustration and context for the theoretical positions under consideration. Thanks to this, TMO comes to life, clearly demonstrating its necessity and viability.

However, it should also be said about the characteristic weaknesses of the approach used in the book. They are largely inherent in realism itself and can only partially be addressed to the authors of the textbook. I will point out two of them in particular.

The first is due to the fact that realists, as the most conservative direction in academic TMO, do not adapt quickly enough to the changes taking place in the world, including those that should be within their direct competence. For example, the information revolution that has been taking place for several decades has not yet produced deep developments by representatives of realist theory. They prefer to analyze wars, including those involving the use of new systems of violence and weapons, but have not yet focused on information wars. Information wars and the issue of “soft power” are actively discussed by experts; books and articles are published on these topics, including in Russia. As for the leading Western journals of academic realism, which strive to set the tone in matters of theory, such as International Security And Security Studies, then this issue is almost not represented there. Meanwhile, informatization and globalization pose in a new way, but by no means eliminate, the need for a realistic understanding of age-old security dilemmas and problems of national sovereignty, imperialism and others.

By the way, in the study of the media space, the meanings formed in it and the challenges and opportunities that arise for the state in academic science, much more has been done by those whom realists rarely pay attention to - constructivists, post-structuralists and representatives of critical theory and critical geopolitics. The authors of the book devote a separate chapter to constructivism, but barely mention post-structuralism and critical geopolitics, although it was the latter that intellectually prepared the relatively new and now relatively independent direction of constructivism.

The second weakness of realism in general - although classical to a lesser extent than structural - is associated with its inclination towards a static-conservative understanding of not only the world system, but also the processes of formation of social knowledge. The authors of the book pay considerable attention to the methods of studying international relations, but it seems that Russian realists and international experts in general need a full discussion of a wide range of issues related to methodology, epistemology and ontology of knowledge. What is the discursive nature and conceptual structure of national interest? What values underlie it? Should values be considered separately or in conjunction with interests? These questions are difficult to answer without understanding how theory is embedded in the context of social and cultural realities and how it is transformed in response to this context. If this context is important, then is it permissible to insist on the universal nature of our knowledge of international relations, as realists do?

In fairness, I note that classical realism is known for its skepticism not only towards universalist ambitions to transform the world, but also towards attempts to form a universally applicable system of knowledge about international relations. British scholar Edward Carr wrote, for example, that Western scholarship on international relations should be understood as " best way rule the world from a position of strength,” without doubting that “the study of international relations in universities in Africa and Asia, if it develops, will be carried out from the point of view of the exploitation of the weak by the strong.” However, the skepticism inherent in classical realism is hardly a sufficient foundation for increasing theoretical knowledge. For such an increase, it is necessary to understand the foundations of this skepticism, related to the study of the peculiarities of national perception, the multidirectional trajectories of national historical development, the originality geographical location and cultural context. In connection with understanding these realities, the importance of developing a national TMO that can support the country’s promotion of its image, interests and values in the world is obvious. Here we cannot do without the integration of the best achievements of Russian political thought, which for centuries has analyzed the cultural and civilizational characteristics of Russia and their influence on the country’s relations with the external environment. Unfortunately, structuralist realists were deprived of the ability to appreciate the richness of historical and cultural conditions and national values and their influence on the formation of TMO in various countries and regions. The authors of the book are aware of the importance of the problem, concluding their work with a chapter on national schools of international relations.

To summarize, I want to support the efforts of Bordachev and his co-authors to develop an academic direction in Russia related to classical realism. Sensitivity to alternative approaches at home and abroad, coupled with a focus on fact-checked knowledge, will contribute to the connection of Russian scientists to global studies of international relations and the gradual formation of their own theoretical directions. Like any TMO, realism is strong in its openness to other directions and approaches and its willingness to learn from them, while remaining realism. In particular, the interaction of realism and constructivism with its attention to the systems of meanings, values and identities emerging in world politics is seen as fruitful. Without the theoretical integration of the latter, it is difficult to imagine the full promotion of national interests and cultural and civilizational values of Russia in the world. The critical considerations expressed above do not negate the need to develop the classical realist direction. On the contrary, active efforts to develop this and other areas will contribute to the pluralization of knowledge, without which the full growth of TMO is impossible.

home » Earn money online » International relations according to Tsygankov. Russia in global politics. Tsygankov P. Political sociology of international relations