Qualitative parameters of the new system of international relations. Features and ways of development of modern international relations How can the system of international relations be compared?

International relations are a special type of social relations that go beyond the framework of intra-social relations and territorial entities.

The study of international relations involves the analysis of foreign policy or political processes between states, including all aspects of relations between different societies.

International relations - in functional analysis - the relations of national governments that more or less control the actions of residents. No government is able to reflect the will of the entire people. People's needs are different, hence pluralism arises. The consequence of pluralism in international affairs is that there is enormous variation in the sources of political activity.

International relations are not part of the governmental or intergovernmental system; each of them represents an independent sphere.

International relations are a set of economic, political, ideological, legal, diplomatic and other connections and relationships between states and systems of states, between the main classes, the main social, economic, political forces, organizations and social movements operating on the world stage, i.e. between peoples in the broadest sense of the word.

International relations are characterized by a number of features that distinguish them from other types of relations in society. These characteristic features include the following:

• * The spontaneous nature of the international political process, which is characterized by the presence of many trends and opinions, which is due to the presence of many subjects of international relations.
• * The increasing importance of the subjective factor, which expresses the increasing role of outstanding political leaders.
• * Coverage of all spheres of society and inclusion of a variety of political subjects in them.
• * The absence of a single center of power and the presence of many equal and sovereign centers for making political decisions.

The main importance for regulating international relations is not laws, but agreements and cooperation agreements.

Levels of international relations.

International relations unfold and exist at various scale levels (vertical) and manifest themselves at various group levels (horizontal).

Vertical - scale levels:

Global international relations are relations between systems of states, major powers and reflect the global political process as a whole.

Regional (subregional) relations are relations between states of a certain political region in all areas of society, which have more specific manifestations and are multilateral in nature.

The relations of a specific international political situation can be quite diverse, but they are always of a specific historical nature. They include various types of relations and can draw into their sphere several states interested in one or another resolution of the current situation. As this situation is overcome, the existing relationships fall apart.

Horizontally - group levels:

Group (coalition, inter-coalition) relations. They are implemented through the relationships between groups of states, international organizations, etc.

Bilateral relations. This is the most common form of international relations between states and organizations. Each of these levels in the system of international relations is characterized by the presence of common features and specific differences that are subject to general and particular laws. Here it is advisable to highlight the relationships within one level and the relationships between different levels vertically and horizontally, superimposing them on each other.

To understand the essence of the system of international relations, the definition of the subjects of international relations, which include classes and other social groups, states and state associations, political parties, non-governmental international organizations, is of great importance. The state is of primary importance as a factor that determines all other elements of the system, because it has the completeness and universality of political power and material capabilities, and economic, scientific and technical potential, military force and other levers of influence are concentrated in its hands.

Other subjects of the system of international relations are of less importance for changing the essence of this system. They rather play a secondary (auxiliary) role. But under certain conditions they can have a decisive impact on the entire system.

Types of international relations.

And finally, for a complete understanding of the system of international relations, it is necessary to highlight the types of international relations. International relations are objective in nature. In accordance with this, the following types of international relations are distinguished, each of which has its own structure, functions, and development process:

Political - play a dominant role, because refract, produce and determine all other types of relationships. Political relations find their expression in the real political activity of elements of the political system, primarily the state. They guarantee security and create conditions for the development of all other relationships, because express class interests in a concentrated form, which determines their dominant position.

Economic, scientific and technical. In modern conditions, these two types of international relations are practically inseparable, and, moreover, cannot exist in isolation from political relations. Foreign policy is, as a rule, aimed at protecting economic relations that influence the formation of the world market and the international division of labor. The state of economic relations is largely determined by the level of development of production and productive forces of states, various economic models, the availability of natural resources and other sectors.

Ideological relations are a relatively independent part of political relations. The role and significance of ideological relations changes depending on the change in the role of ideologists in society. But there is a general tendency towards an increasing role of ideology, and, consequently, ideological relations.

International legal relations - involve the regulation of relationships between participants in international communication by legal norms and rules that these participants have agreed upon. The international legal mechanism allows participants to protect their interests, develop relationships, prevent conflicts, resolve controversial issues, maintain peace and security in the interests of all peoples. International legal relations are universal in nature and are based on a system of generally recognized principles. In addition to generally accepted rules governing all types of international relations, there are also specific rules that regulate their special areas (diplomatic law, maritime trade law, international arbitration, court, etc.).

Military-strategic relations, which include a vast sphere of specific social and international relations, one way or another connected with the direct or indirect creation, build-up, and redistribution of military force.

The creation of nuclear weapons has radically changed the nature, scale and intensity of military-political relations between states: allied, confrontational, cooperative-confrontational.

Cultural relations, which are based on the processes of internationalization of public life, interpenetration and enrichment of cultures, educational systems, and the rapid development of the media. For the most part, non-governmental organizations play a major role in their development.

All types of international relations can exist in various forms, which are very diverse:

• * political: legal, diplomatic, organizational, etc.;
• * economic: financial, trade, cooperative, etc.;
• * ideological: agreements, declarations, sabotage, psychological warfare, etc.;
• * military-strategic: blocs, alliances, etc.;
• * cultural: artist tours, information exchange, exhibitions, etc.

The system of international relations is in constant development and improvement, new types and levels of relations appear, their forms are filled with new content. International relations find their real embodiment in the foreign policy activities of states, parties, etc.

The variety of typologies of international systems should not be misleading, because most of them bear the stamp of the theory of political realism: they are based on the determination of the number of great powers (superpowers), the distribution of power, interstate conflicts, etc.

Political realism is the basis of such widely known concepts as bipolar, multipolar, equilibrium and imperial international systems.

On the basis of political realism, M. Kaplan builds his famous typology of international systems, which includes six types of systems, most of which are hypothetical, a priori in nature:

• Type 1 - the balance of power system - is characterized by multipolarity. According to M. Kaplan, within the framework of such a system there should be at least five great powers. If their number is smaller, then the system will inevitably transform into a bipolar one.
• Type 2 is a flexible bipolar system in which both state actors and a new type of actors coexist - unions and blocs of states, as well as universal actors - international organizations. Depending on the internal organization of the two blocs, there are several options for a flexible bipolar system, which can be: highly hierarchical and authoritarian (the will of the head of the coalition is imposed on its allies); non-hierarchized (if the bloc line is formed through mutual consultations between states autonomous from each other).
• Type 3 - rigid bipolar system. It is characterized by the same configuration as the flexible bipolar system, but both blocks are organized in a strictly hierarchical manner. In a rigid bipolar system there are no non-aligned and neutral states, which were the case in a flexible bipolar system. The universal actor plays a very limited role in the third type of system. He is not able to put pressure on one or another block. At both poles, conflicts are effectively resolved, directions of diplomatic behavior are formed, and combined force is used.
• Type 4 - a universal system - actually corresponds to a federation, which implies the predominant role of a universal actor, a greater degree of political homogeneity of the international environment and is based on the solidarity of national actors and the universal actor. For example, a situation in which the role of the UN would be significantly expanded to the detriment of state sovereignties would correspond to a universal system. Under such conditions, the UN would have exclusive competence in resolving conflicts and maintaining peace. This presupposes the presence of well-developed systems of integration in the political, economic and administrative fields. Broad powers in the universal system belong to the universal actor, who has the right to determine the status of states and allocate resources to them, and international relations function on the basis of rules, the responsibility for observing which also lies with the universal actor.
• Type 5 - a hierarchical system - is a world state in which national states lose their significance, becoming simple territorial units, and any centrifugal tendencies are immediately stopped.
• Type 6 - single veto - each actor has the ability to block the system using certain means of blackmail, while having the opportunity to vigorously resist blackmail from another state, no matter how strong it may be. In other words, any state is capable of protecting itself from any enemy. A similar situation could arise, for example, in the event of a general proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Kaplan's concept is assessed critically by experts, and primarily for its speculative nature and isolation from reality. At the same time, it is recognized that this was one of the first attempts at serious research specifically devoted to the problems of international systems in order to identify the laws of their functioning and change.

MAIN MILESTONES IN THE RECENT HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. ETHNODEMOGRAPHIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD.

The history of international relations is a science that studies the totality of economic, political, cultural relationships between countries and peoples of the world in historical dynamics. How diverse, complex, and ambiguous international relations are in the assessments of scientists and politicians, so complex, interesting and informative is this science. Just as politics, economics, and culture are interdependent within a single state, so at the level of international relations these components are inseparable. In the history of international relations of the twentieth century. We can roughly distinguish five main periods.

1 – from the beginning of the century to the First World War inclusive;

2 – formation and development of a new European balance within the framework of the Versailles system of international relations; it ends with the collapse of the Versailles world order and the establishment of German hegemony in Europe;

3 – history of international relations during the Second World War; ends with the formation of a bipolar structure of the world;

4 – the period of the “Cold War” East – West and the division of Europe;

5 is a time of global changes in the world associated with the crisis and decomposition of socialism, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of a new world order.

XX century became the century of globalization of world processes, increasing interdependence of states and peoples of the world. The foreign policy of the leading states became more and more clearly aligned with the interests of not only neighboring, but also geographically distant countries. Simultaneously with the global systems of international relations in Europe, their peripheral subsystems were formed and functioned in the Middle and Far East, Central and South America, etc.

The development of world civilization as a whole and individual countries is largely determined by the relationships between the peoples inhabiting the Earth.

XX century was marked by the rapid development of international relations, the complication of combinations of interaction between countries in politics, economics, ideology, culture, and religion. Interstate relations have reached a new level, turning into relatively stable systems of international relations. One of the most important factors that determined the role of the state in the international arena of the twentieth century was the country’s population and its ethno-demographic composition.

One of the main trends of recent centuries has been a sharp increase in population. If during the first 15 centuries AD the world population grew only 2.5 times, then during the 16th – 19th centuries. the number of people increased almost 10 times. In 1900 there were 1630 million people in the world. Currently, there are already more than 6 billion inhabitants of planet Earth. The most populated countries are China (slightly less than 1.5 billion) and

India (more than 1 billion people).

Researchers count from 3.5 to 4 thousand different peoples in the modern world - from the largest nations to the smallest tribes with a population of tens of people. In general, determining the national composition in different countries is an extremely difficult matter. In international relations, one of the determining factors is the awareness of the people as a single nation, consolidated around a national idea (and it is sometimes difficult to find). In Europe, where mostly large nations live, there are about 60 large nations.

The most common languages ​​of the world include:

– Chinese (about 1.5 billion, including residents of the diaspora, i.e. living outside China);

– English (about 500 million);

– Hindi (about 300 million);

– Spanish (about 280 million);

– Russian (about 220 million);

– Arabic (about 160 million);

– Portuguese (about 160 million);

– Japanese (about 120 million);

– German (about 100 million);

– French (almost 94 million).

These languages ​​are spoken by almost two-thirds of humanity. The official and working languages ​​of the UN are English, French, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese.

RELIGION. With the development of society and increased contacts between peoples, broader religious communities arise than before; Different peoples can profess the same religion. By the 20th century Most large modern nations belonged to one of the world religions - Christianity, Buddhism or Islam.

The forerunners of these religions include:

Judaism is the first monotheistic religion, which appeared among the ancient Jews;

Zoroastrianism is based on dualism - the idea of ​​​​the confrontation between good and evil principles;

Confucianism and Taoism (religious, ethical and philosophical doctrines that arose in Ancient China);

Hinduism, which is characterized by the belief in the transmigration of souls;

Shintoism (Japan).

If we try to imagine the world's population through the prism of religious affiliation, we get:

Christians – more than 1 billion, of which:

– Catholics – about 600 million;

– Protestants – about 350 million;

– Orthodox – about 80 million.

Interestingly, the majority of Catholics and Protestants now live in the New World.

Islam is professed by more than 800 million people, of whom

– Sunnis – 730 million;

– Shiites – 70 million.

Hinduism, the ancient religion of India, is worshiped by 520 million people. Despite such a number of adepts (adherents), this religion is not among the world ones, since it is of a purely national character.

Buddhism, the oldest of the world's religions, is practiced by about 250 million people.

It should be noted that all world religions are the fruits of NON-WESTERN civilizations, and the most important political ideologies - liberalism, socialism, conservatism, social democracy, fascism, nationalism, Christian democracy - are products of the WEST.

Religion unites peoples, but it can also become a cause of hostility, conflicts and wars, when people of the same ethnic group speaking the same language are capable of fratricidal wars. Currently, the religious factor is one of the key factors in international relations.

The global scale and radicality of the changes taking place today in the political, economic, spiritual areas of life of the world community, in the sphere of military security, allow us to put forward assumptions about the formation

a new system of international relations, different from those that functioned throughout the twentieth century, and in many ways, starting from the classical Westphalian system.

In the world and domestic literature, a more or less stable approach to the systematization of international relations has developed, depending on their content, the composition of participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that international (interstate) relations proper arose during the formation of national states in the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The starting point is the end of the Thirty Years' War in Europe and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Since then, the entire 350-year period of international interaction has been considered by many, especially Western, researchers as the history of a single Westphalian system. The dominant subjects of this system are sovereign states. There is no final arbiter in the system, so states are independent in pursuing domestic policies within their national borders and are, in principle, equal in rights.

Most scholars agree that the main driving force of the Westphalian system of international relations was rivalry between states: some sought to increase their influence, while others sought to prevent this. The outcome of the rivalry, as a rule, was determined by the balance of power between states or alliances into which they entered to realize their foreign policy goals. The establishment of equilibrium, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations; the disruption of the balance of power ultimately led to war and its restoration in a new configuration, reflecting the increased influence of some states at the expense of others. For clarity and simplification, this system is compared with the movement of billiard balls. States collide with each other, forming changing configurations, and then move again in an endless struggle for influence or security. The main principle here is one’s own benefit. The main criterion is strength.

The Westphalian system of international relations is divided into several stages (subsystems), united by general patterns, but differing from each other in features characteristic of a specific period of relations between

states. In this case, they usually distinguish:

– a system of predominantly Anglo-French rivalry in Europe and the struggle for colonies in the 17th–18th centuries;

– the system of the “European Concert of Nations” or the “Congress of Vienna” of the 19th century;

– Versailles-Washington system between the two world wars;

– the “Cold War” system, or the Yalta-Potsdam system.

Obviously, in the second half of the 80s - early 90s. XX century There have been fundamental changes in international relations that allow us to talk about the end of the Cold War and the formation of new system-forming patterns.

Most foreign and domestic international experts take the wave of political changes in the countries of Central Europe in the fall of 1989 as the watershed between the Cold War and the current stage of international relations, and consider the fall of the Berlin Wall as a clear example. The obvious distinctive features of the emergence of a new system in comparison with the previous one are the removal of the political-ideological confrontation between “anti-communism” and “communism” due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the winding down of the military confrontation of the blocs grouped during the Cold War around two poles - Washington and Moscow.

Recently, pessimistic complaints have been increasingly heard that the new international situation is less stable, less predictable and even more dangerous than in previous decades. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the change of systems does not occur instantly, but gradually, in the struggle of the new with the old, and the feeling of increased instability and danger is caused by the variability of the new and incomprehensible world.

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

Firstly, the globalization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UDC 327(075) G.N.KRAINOV

EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND ITS FEATURES AT THE PRESENT STAGE

Speaking at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Sochi, October 24, 2014) with a report “World order: New rules or a game without rules?”, President of Russia V.V. Putin noted that the global system of “checks and balances” that developed during the Cold War has been destroyed with the active participation of the United States, but the dominance of one center of power has only led to growing chaos in international relations. According to him, the United States, faced with the ineffectiveness of a unipolar world, is trying to recreate “some semblance of a quasi-bipolar system”, looking for an “enemy image” in the person of Iran, China or Russia. The Russian leader believes that the international community is at a historical crossroads, where there is a threat of a game without rules in the world order, and that a “reasonable reconstruction” should be carried out in the world order (1).

Leading world politicians and political scientists also point to the inevitability of the formation of a new world order, a new system of international relations (4).

In this regard, a historical and political science analysis of the evolution of the system of international relations and consideration of possible options for the formation of a new world order at the present stage are relevant.

It should be noted that until the middle of the 17th century. international relations were characterized by the disunity of their participants, the unsystematic nature of international interactions, the main manifestation of which were short-term armed conflicts or long wars. At different periods, the historical hegemons in the world were Ancient Egypt, the Persian Empire, the Power of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Empire of Charlemagne, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. All of them were focused on establishing their own individual domination, building a unipolar world. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the papal throne, tried to establish its dominance over peoples and states. International relations were anarchic in nature and characterized by great uncertainty. As a result, each participant in international relations was forced to take steps based on the unpredictability of the behavior of other participants, which led to open conflicts.

The modern system of interstate relations dates back to 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia put an end to the Thirty Years' War in Western Europe and sanctioned the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire into independent states. It was from this time that the national state (in Western terminology - “nation state”) was universally established as the main form of political organization of society, and the principle of national (i.e. state) sovereignty became the dominant principle of international relations. The main fundamental provisions of the Westphalian model of the world were:

The world consists of sovereign states (accordingly, there is no single supreme power in the world, and there is no principle of a universalist hierarchy of government);

The system is based on the principle of sovereign equality of states and, consequently, their non-interference in each other's internal affairs;

A sovereign state has unlimited power over its citizens within its territory;

The world is governed by international law, understood as the law of treaties between sovereign states that must be respected; - sovereign states are subjects of international law, only they are internationally recognized subjects;

International law and regular diplomatic practice are integral attributes of relations between states (2, 47-49).

The idea of ​​a national state with sovereignty was based on four main characteristics: the presence of territory; the presence of a population living in a given territory; legitimate management of the population; recognition by other nation states. At

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

In the absence of at least one of these characteristics, the state becomes sharply limited in its capabilities, or ceases to exist. The basis of the state-centric model of the world was “national interests”, for which a search for compromise solutions is possible (and not value guidelines, in particular religious ones, for which compromises are impossible). An important feature of the Westphalian model was the geographical limitation of its scope. It had a distinctly Eurocentric character.

After the Peace of Westphalia, it became customary to keep permanent residents and diplomats at foreign courts. For the first time in historical practice, interstate borders were redrawn and clearly defined. Thanks to this, coalitions and interstate alliances began to emerge, which gradually began to acquire importance. The papacy lost its importance as a supranational power. States in foreign policy began to be guided by their own interests and ambitions.

At this time, the theory of European balance emerged, which was developed in the works of N. Machiavelli. He proposed establishing a balance of power between the five Italian states. The theory of European balance will eventually be accepted by all of Europe, and it will work right up to the present day, being the basis of international unions and coalitions of states.

At the beginning of the 18th century. with the conclusion of the Peace of Utrecht (1713), which put an end to the struggle for the Spanish inheritance between France and Spain, on the one hand, and a coalition of states led by Great Britain, on the other, the concept of “balance of power” appears in international documents, which complemented the Westphalian model and became widespread in the political vocabulary of the second half of the 20th century. The balance of power is the distribution of world influence between individual centers of power - poles and can take on various configurations: bipolar, tripolar, multipolar (or multipolar)

it. d. The main goal of the balance of power is to prevent dominance in the international system by one or a group of states and to ensure the maintenance of international order.

Based on the views of N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, as well as A. Smith, J.-J. Rousseau and others, the first theoretical schemes of political realism and liberalism were formed.

From a political science point of view, the system of the Peace of Westphalia (sovereign states) still exists, but from a historical point of view, it collapsed at the beginning of the 19th century.

The system of international relations that emerged after the Napoleonic wars was normatively consolidated by the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. The victorious powers saw the meaning of their collective international activity in creating reliable barriers against the spread of revolutions. Hence the appeal to the ideas of legitimism. The Vienna system of international relations is characterized by the idea of ​​a European concert - a balance of power between European states. The “European Concert” (English: Concert of Europe) was based on the general consent of large states: Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, Great Britain. The elements of the Vienna system were not only states, but also coalitions of states. The “Concert of Europe,” while remaining a form of hegemony for large states and coalitions, for the first time effectively limited their freedom of action in the international arena.

The Vienna international system affirmed the balance of power established as a result of the Napoleonic wars and consolidated the borders of nation states. Russia secured Finland, Bessarabia and expanded its western borders at the expense of Poland, dividing it between itself, Austria and Prussia.

The Vienna system recorded a new geographical map of Europe, a new balance of geopolitical forces. This geopolitical system was based on the imperial principle of control of geographical space within the colonial empires. During the Vienna system, empires were formed: British (1876), German (1871), French (1852). In 1877, the Turkish Sultan took the title “Emperor of the Ottomans”, and Russia became an empire earlier - in 1721.

Within the framework of this system, the concept of great powers was formulated for the first time (at that time, primarily Russia, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia), and multilateral diplomacy and diplomatic protocol took shape. Many researchers call the Vienna system of international relations the first example of collective security.

At the beginning of the 20th century, new states entered the world stage. This is primarily the USA, Japan, Germany, Italy. From this moment on, Europe ceases to be the only continent where new world leading states are being formed.

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

The world is gradually ceasing to be Eurocentric, the international system is beginning to transform into a global one.

The Versailles-Washington system of international relations is a multipolar world order, the foundations of which were laid at the end of the First World War of 1914-1918. The Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, treaties with Germany's allies and agreements concluded at the Washington Conference of 1921-1922.

The European (Versailles) part of this system was formed under the influence of geopolitical and military-strategic considerations of the victorious countries in the First World War (mainly Great Britain, France, USA, Japan) while ignoring the interests of the defeated and newly formed countries

(Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia),

which made this structure vulnerable to demands for its transformation and did not contribute to long-term stability in world affairs. Its characteristic feature was its anti-Soviet orientation. The greatest beneficiaries of the Versailles system were Great Britain, France and the United States. At this time, there was a civil war in Russia, the victory of which remained with the Bolsheviks.

The US refusal to participate in the functioning of the Versailles system, the isolation of Soviet Russia and its anti-German orientation turned it into an unbalanced and contradictory system, thereby increasing the potential for a future world conflict.

It should be noted that an integral part of the Versailles Peace Treaty was the Charter of the League of Nations, an intergovernmental organization, which defined as the main goals the development of cooperation between peoples, guarantees of their peace and security. It was initially signed by 44 states. The United States did not ratify this treaty and did not become a member of the League of Nations. Then the USSR and Germany were not included in it.

One of the key ideas in the creation of the League of Nations was the idea of ​​collective security. It was assumed that states have the legal right to resist an aggressor. In practice, as we know, this failed to be done, and in 1939 the world was plunged into a new world war. The League of Nations also effectively ceased to exist in 1939, although it was formally dissolved in 1946. However, many elements of the structure and procedure, as well as the main goals of the League of Nations, were inherited by the United Nations (UN).

The Washington system, which extended to the Asia-Pacific region, was somewhat more balanced, but was also not universal. Its instability was determined by the uncertainty of the political development of China, the militaristic foreign policy of Japan, the then isolationism of the United States, etc. Starting with the Monroe Doctrine, the policy of isolationism gave rise to one of the most important features of American foreign policy - a tendency to unilateral actions (unilateralism).

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is a system of international relations enshrined in treaties and agreements at the Yalta (4-11 February 1945) and Potsdam (17 July - 2 August 1945) conferences of heads of state of the Anti-Hitler Coalition.

For the first time, the question of a post-war settlement was raised at the highest level during the Tehran Conference of 1943, where already then the strengthening of the position of two powers - the USSR and the USA - was clearly evident, to which the decisive role in determining the parameters of the post-war world was increasingly being transferred, that is, still in During the course of the war, the prerequisites for the formation of the foundations of a future bipolar world are emerging. This trend was fully manifested at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, when the main role in solving key problems associated with the formation of a new model of international relations was played by two, now superpowers - the USSR and the USA. The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations was characterized by:

The absence (unlike, for example, the Versailles-Washington system) of the necessary legal framework, which made it very vulnerable to criticism and recognition by some states;

Bipolarity based on the military-political superiority of the two superpowers (USSR and USA) over other countries. Blocs were formed around them (Air Forces and NATO). Bipolarity was not limited only to the military and power superiority of the two states, it covered almost all spheres - socio-political, economic, ideological, scientific, technical, cultural, etc.;

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

Confrontation, which meant that the parties constantly contrasted their actions with each other. Competition, rivalry and antagonism, rather than cooperation between blocs, were the leading characteristics of relations;

The presence of nuclear weapons, which threatened multiple mutual destruction of the superpowers with their allies, which was a special factor in the confrontation between the parties. Gradually (after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962) the parties began to consider a nuclear clash only as the most extreme means of influencing international relations, and in this sense, nuclear weapons had their deterrent role;

The political and ideological confrontation between the West and the East, capitalism and socialism, which brought additional uncompromisingness in the face of disagreements and conflicts into international relations;

A relatively high degree of controllability of international processes due to the fact that coordination of the positions of actually only two superpowers was required (5, pp. 21-22). Post-war realities, the intransigence of confrontational relations between the USSR and the USA, significantly limited the ability of the UN to realize its statutory functions and goals.

The USA wanted to establish American hegemony in the world under the slogan “Pax Americana”, and the USSR sought to establish socialism on a global scale. Ideological confrontation, the “struggle of ideas,” led to mutual demonization of the opposite side and remained an important feature of the post-war system of international relations. The system of international relations associated with the confrontation between two blocs is called “bipolar”.

During these years, the arms race, and then its limitation, and problems of military security were central issues in international relations. In general, the fierce rivalry between the two blocs, which more than once threatened to result in a new world war, was called the Cold War. The most dangerous moment in the history of the post-war period was the Caribbean (Cuban) crisis of 1962, when the USA and the USSR seriously discussed the possibility of launching a nuclear strike.

Both opposing blocs had military-political alliances - the Organization

the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO (English: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; NATO), formed in 1949, and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) - in 1955. The concept of “balance of power” became one of the key elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations . The world found itself “divided” into zones of influence between two blocs. A fierce struggle was waged for them.

A significant stage in the development of the world's political system was the collapse of colonialism. In the 1960s, almost the entire African continent was freed from colonial dependence. Developing countries have begun to influence the political development of the world. They joined the UN, and in 1955 they formed the Non-Aligned Movement, which, according to the creators, was supposed to oppose two opposing blocs.

The destruction of the colonial system and the formation of regional and subregional subsystems were carried out under the dominant influence of the horizontal spread of systemic bipolar confrontation and the growing trends of economic and political globalization.

The end of the Potsdam era was marked by the collapse of the world socialist camp, which followed the failed attempt of Gorbachev’s perestroika, and was

enshrined in the Belovezhskaya Accords of 1991.

After 1991, a fragile and contradictory Bialowieza system of international relations was established (Western researchers call it the Post Cold-War era), which is characterized by polycentric unipolarity. The essence of this world order was the implementation of the historical project of spreading the standards of Western “neoliberal democracy” to the whole world. Political scientists came up with the “concept of American global leadership” in “soft” and “hard” forms. “Hard hegemony” was based on the idea of ​​the United States as the only power with sufficient economic and military power to implement the idea of ​​global leadership. To consolidate its exclusive status, the United States, according to this concept, should, if possible, widen the gap between itself and other states. “Soft hegemony,” according to this concept, is aimed at creating an image of the United States as a model for the whole world: striving for a leading position in the world, America must gently put pressure on other states and convince them by the power of its own example.

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

American hegemony was expressed in presidential doctrines: Truman,

Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush - gave the United States during the Cold War almost unlimited rights to ensure security in a particular region of the world; The basis of the Clinton doctrine was the thesis of “expanding democracy” in Eastern Europe with the goal of turning former socialist states into a “strategic reserve” of the West. The United States (as part of NATO operations) twice carried out armed intervention in Yugoslavia - in Bosnia (1995) and in Kosovo (1999). The “expansion of democracy” was also expressed in the fact that former members of the Warsaw Pact - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - were included in the North Atlantic Alliance for the first time in 1999; George W. Bush's doctrine of "hard" hegemony was a response to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 and was based on three pillars: unmatched military power, the concept of preventive war and unilateralism. The Bush Doctrine included states that support terrorism or develop weapons of mass destruction as potential adversaries—speaking before Congress in 2002, the president used the now well-known expression “axis of evil” in relation to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The White House categorically refused to engage in dialogue with such regimes and declared its determination by all means (including armed intervention) to contribute to their elimination. The openly hegemonic aspirations of the administration of George W. Bush and then Barack Obama catalyzed the growth of anti-American sentiment around the world, including the intensification of an “asymmetric response” in the form of transnational terrorism (3, pp. 256-257).

Another feature of this project was that the new world order was based on the processes of globalization. It was an attempt to create a global world according to American standards.

Finally, this project upset the balance of power and had no contractual basis at all, which V.V. pointed out in his Valdai speech in Sochi. Putin (1). It was based on a chain of precedents and unilateral doctrines and concepts of the United States, which were mentioned above (2, p. 112).

At first, the events associated with the collapse of the USSR, the end of the Cold War, etc., were received with enthusiasm and even romanticism in many countries, especially Western ones. In 1989, an article by Francis Fukuyama “The End of History?” appeared in the United States. (The End of the History?), and in 1992 his book “The End of History and the Last Man”. In them, the author predicted the triumph, the triumph of Western-style liberal democracy, that this supposedly indicates the end point of the sociocultural evolution of humanity and the formation of the final form of government, the end of the century of ideological confrontations, global revolutions and wars, art and philosophy, and with them - the end history (6, pp. 68-70; 7, pp. 234-237).

The concept of the “end of history” had a great influence on the formation of the foreign policy of US President George W. Bush and actually became the “canonical text” of the neoconservatives, as it was consonant with the main goal of their foreign policy - the active promotion of Western-style liberal democracy and free markets around the world. And after the events of September 11, 2011, the Bush administration came to the conclusion that Fukuyama's historical forecast was passive in nature and history needed conscious organization, leadership and management in an appropriate spirit, including through the change of undesirable regimes as a key component of anti-terrorism policy.

Then, in the early 1990s, there was a surge of conflicts, moreover, in a seemingly calm Europe (which caused particular concern for both Europeans and Americans). This gave rise to directly opposite sentiments. Samuel Huntington (S. Huntington) in 1993, in the article “The Clash of Civilizations,” took a position opposite to F. Fukuyama, predicting conflicts on a civilizational basis (8, pp. 53-54). In his book of the same name, published in 1996, S. Huntington tried to prove the thesis about the inevitability in the near future of a confrontation between the Islamic and Western worlds, which will resemble the Soviet-American confrontation during the Cold War (9, pp. 348-350). These publications also received wide discussion in various countries. Then, when the number of armed conflicts began to decline and a ceasefire emerged in Europe, S. Huntington’s idea of ​​civilizational wars began to be forgotten. However, a surge in brutal and demonstrative terrorist acts in the early 2000s in various parts of the globe (especially the explosion of the Twin Towers in the United States on September 11, 2001), hooligan pogroms in the cities of France, Belgium and other European countries, undertaken by immigrants from Asian countries, Africa and the Middle East, has caused many, especially journalists, to once again

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

talk about the conflict of civilizations. Discussions arose regarding the causes and characteristics of modern terrorism, nationalism and extremism, confrontations between the rich “North” and the poor “South”, etc.

Today, the principle of American hegemony is contradicted by the factor of increasing heterogeneity of the world, in which states with different socio-economic, political, cultural and value systems coexist. Unreal

There also appears to be a project for disseminating the Western model of liberal democracy, way of life, and value system as general norms accepted by all, or at least most, states of the world. It is opposed by equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification along ethnic, national, and religious lines, which is expressed in the growing influence of nationalist, traditionalist and fundamentalist ideas in the world. In addition to sovereign states, transnational and supranational associations are increasingly acting as independent players on the world stage. The modern international system is characterized by a colossal increase in the number of interactions between its various participants at different levels. As a result of this, it becomes not only more interdependent, but also mutually vulnerable, which requires the creation of new and reform of existing institutions and mechanisms for maintaining stability (such as the UN, IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, EAEU, BRICS, SCO, etc.). Therefore, in contrast to the idea of ​​a “unipolar world,” the thesis about the need to develop and strengthen a multipolar model of international relations as a system of “balance of power” is increasingly being put forward. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that any multipolar system in a critical situation tends to transform into a bipolar one. This is clearly demonstrated today by the acute Ukrainian crisis.

Thus, history knows 5 models of the system of international relations. Each of the successively replacing each other models passed through several phases in its development: from the phase of formation to the phase of decay. Up to and including the Second World War, the starting point of the next cycle in the transformation of the system of international relations was major military conflicts. In the course of them, a radical regrouping of forces was carried out, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries changed, and a serious redrawing of borders took place. These advances made it possible to eliminate old pre-war contradictions and clear the way for a new round of development.

The emergence of nuclear weapons and the achievement of parity in this area between the USSR and the USA restrained direct military conflicts. The confrontation intensified in the economy, ideology, and culture, although there were also local military conflicts. For objective and subjective reasons, the USSR collapsed, followed by the socialist bloc, and the bipolar system ceased to function.

But the attempt to establish unipolar American hegemony is now failing. A new world order can only be born as a result of the joint creativity of members of the world community. One of the optimal forms of global governance could be collective (cooperative) governance, carried out through a flexible network system, the cells of which would be international organizations (updated UN, WTO, EU, EAEU, etc.), trade, economic, information, telecommunications, transport and other systems . Such a world system will be characterized by increased dynamics of change, have several points of growth and change simultaneously in several directions.

The emerging world system, taking into account the balance of power, may be polycentric, and its centers themselves diversified, so that the global structure of power will be multi-level and multi-dimensional (centers of military power will not coincide with centers of economic power, etc.). The centers of the world system will have both common features and political, social, economic, ideological and civilizational features.

Ideas and proposals of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin expressed at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on October 24, 2014 in this spirit, will be analyzed by the world community and implemented in international contractual practice. This was confirmed by the agreements between the United States and China signed on November 11, 2014 in Beijing at the APEC summit (Obama and Xi Jinping signed agreements on opening the US domestic market to China, notifying each other of their desire to enter “near-territorial” waters, etc. .). The proposals of the President of the Russian Federation were also taken into account at the G20 summit in Brisbane (Australia) on November 14-16, 2014.

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

Today, on the basis of these ideas and values, a contradictory process of transformation of the unipolar world into a new multipolar system of international relations based on the balance of power is taking place.

LITERATURE:

1. Putin, V.V. World order: New rules or a game without rules? / V.V. Putin // Znamya. - 2014. October 24.

2. Kortunov, S.V. The collapse of the Westphalian system and the formation of a new world order / S.V. Kortunov // World Politics. - M.: State University-Higher School of Economics, 2007. - P. 45-63.

3. Kosov, Yu.V. World politics and international relations / Yu.V. Kosov.- M.: 2012. - 456 p.

4. Cedric, Moon (Cedric Moon). The end of a superpower / S. Moon / Russia Today. - 2014. - December 2.

5. Systemic history of international relations: 4 volumes / Ed. Doctor of Philology, Prof. A. D Bogaturova. -T.1.- M.: 2000. - 325 p.-1-t

6. Fukuyama, F. The end of history? / F. Fukuyama // Questions of philosophy. - 1990. - No. 3. - P. 56-74.

7. Fukuyama, Francis. The end of history and the last man / F. Fukuyama; lane from English M.B.

Levina. - M.: ACT, 2007. - 347 p.

8. Huntington, S. Clash of Civilizations / S. Hanginton// Polis. - 1994. - N°1. - P.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. Clash of Civilizations / S. Huntington. - M.: ACT, 2003. - 351 p.

1. Putin, V.V. T he World Order: the new rules or a game without rules? /V.V. Putin // Znamya.- 2014.-October 24.

2. Kortunov, S.V. The collapse of the Westphalian system and the establishment of a new world order / S.V.Kortunov // Mirovaya politika.- M.: GU HSE, 2007. - P. 45-63.

3. Kosov, Yu.V. The World politics and international relations / Yu.V. Kosov.- M.: 2012. - 456 p.

5. The System History of International Relations: 4 v. /Ed. Doctor of Science in Politics, Professor A. A. Bogaturova. -V.1.- M., 2000. - 325p.-1-v.

6. Fukuyama, F. The End of History? / F. Fukuyama // Questions filosofii. - 1990. - # 3. - P. 56-74.

7. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man / F. Fukuyama; translated from English by M.B. Levin. - M.: AST, 2007. - 347s p.

8. Huntington, S. The Clash of Civilizations / S. Huntington // Polis. -1994. - #1.-P.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. The Clash of Civilizations / S. Huntington. - M.: AST, 2003. - 351p.

The evolution of the system of international relations and its features at the present stage

Key words: Evolution; system of international relations; Westphalian system; Vienna system; Versailles-Washington system; Yalta-Potsdam system; Belovezhskaya system.

The article examines from a historical and political science perspective the process of transformation and evolution of systems of international relations that have developed in different periods. Particular attention is paid to the analysis and identification of the features of the Westphalian, Vienna, Versailles-Washington, Yalta-Potsdam systems. What is new in terms of research is the identification in the article since 1991 of the Belovezhskaya system of international relations and its characteristics. The author also concludes that at the present stage a new system of international relations is being formed on the basis of ideas, proposals, and values ​​expressed by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on October 24, 2014.

The article concludes that today there is a contradictory process of transformation of the unipolar world into a new multipolar system of international relations.

The evolution of international relations and its specifics at present period

Keywords: Evolution, international relations system, the Westphalia system, the Vienna system, the Versailles-Washington system, the Yalta-Potsdam system, the Belovezhsk system.

NOMAI DONISHGO* SCIENTIFIC NOTES

The paper reviews the process of transformation, evolution happened in different periods, the system of international relations from historical and political views. Particular attention is paid to the analysis and identification of the Westphalia, the Vienna, the Versailles-Washington, the Yalta-Potsdam systems features. The new aspect of the research distinguishes the Belovezhsk system of international relations started in 1991 and its characteristics. The author also makes conclusion about the development of a new system of international relations at the present stage on the basis of ideas, proposals, values ​​expressed by the President of Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Sochi, October 24, 2014. The paper draws a conclusion that today the controversial process of transformation of the unipolar world has changed into a new multipolar system of international relations.

Krainov Grigory Nikandrovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Political Science, History, Social Technologies, Moscow State University of Transport, (MIIT), Moscow (Russia - Moscow), E-mail: [email protected]

Information about the

Krainov Grigoriy Nikandrovich, Doctor of History, Political Science, History, Social Technologies, Moscow State University of Communication Means (MSUCM), (Russia, Moscow), E-mail: [email protected]

The global scale and radicality of the changes taking place today in the political, economic, spiritual spheres of life of the world community, in the sphere of military security allow us to put forward the assumption of the formation of a new system of international relations, different from those that have functioned throughout the last century, and in many ways since from the classical Westphalian system.
In the world and domestic literature, a more or less stable approach to the systematization of international relations has developed, depending on their content, the composition of participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that international (interstate) relations proper arose during the formation of national states in the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The starting point is the end of the “Thirty Years' War” in Europe and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Since then, the entire 350-year period of international interaction up to the present day is considered by many, especially Western researchers, as the history of a single Westphalian system of international relations. The dominant subjects of this system are sovereign states. There is no supreme arbiter in the system, so states are independent in pursuing domestic policies within their national borders and, in principle, have equal rights. Sovereignty presupposes non-interference in each other's affairs. Over time, states developed a set of rules governing international relations based on these principles - international law.
Most scholars agree that the main driving force of the Westphalian system of international relations was rivalry between states: some sought to increase their influence, while others sought to prevent this. Conflicts between states were determined by the fact that national interests, perceived as vitally important by some states, came into conflict with the national interests of other states. The outcome of this rivalry, as a rule, was determined by the balance of power between states or alliances into which they entered to realize their foreign policy goals. The establishment of equilibrium, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations; a violation of the balance of power ultimately led to war and its restoration in a new configuration, reflecting the strengthening of the influence of some states at the expense of others. For clarity and, naturally, with a great deal of simplification, this system is compared with the movement of billiard balls. States collide with each other, forming changing configurations, and then move again in an endless struggle for influence or security. The main principle in this case is one’s own benefit. The main criterion is strength.
The Westphalian era (or system) of international relations is divided into several stages (or subsystems), united by the general patterns indicated above, but differing from each other in features characteristic of a specific period of relations between states. Usually, historians identify several subsystems of the Westphalian system, which are often considered as independent: the system of predominantly Anglo-French rivalry in Europe and the struggle for colonies in the 17th - 18th centuries; the system of the “European Concert of Nations” or the Congress of Vienna in the 19th century; the more geographically global Versailles-Washington system between the two world wars; finally, the Cold War system, or, as some scientists define it, the Yalta-Potsdam system. It is obvious that in the second half of the 80s - early 90s of the XX century. There have been fundamental changes in international relations that allow us to talk about the end of the Cold War and the formation of new system-forming patterns. The main question today is what these patterns are, what are the specifics of the new stage in comparison with the previous ones, how does it fit into the general Westphalian system or differ from it, how can a new system of international relations be defined.
Most foreign and domestic international experts take the wave of political changes in the countries of Central Europe in the fall of 1989 as the watershed between the Cold War and the current stage of international relations, and consider the fall of the Berlin Wall to be its clear symbol. In the titles of most monographs, articles, conferences, and training courses devoted to today's processes, the emerging system of international relations or world politics is designated as belonging to the post-cold war period. This definition focuses attention on what is missing in the current period compared to the previous one. The obvious distinctive features of the system emerging today in comparison with the previous one are the removal of the political-ideological confrontation between “anti-communism” and “communism” due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the winding down of the military confrontation of the blocs grouped during the Cold War around two poles - Washington and Moscow. Such a definition does not adequately reflect the new essence of world politics, just as in its time the formula “after the Second World War” did not reveal the new quality of the emerging patterns of the Cold War. Therefore, when analyzing today's international relations and trying to forecast their development, one should pay attention to qualitatively new processes emerging under the influence of changed conditions of international life.
Recently, one can increasingly hear pessimistic complaints about the fact that the new international situation is less stable, predictable and even more dangerous than in previous decades. Indeed, the clear contrasts of the Cold War are clearer than the variety of undertones of the new international relations. In addition, the Cold War is already a thing of the past, an era that has become the object of leisurely study by historians, and the new system is just emerging, and its development can only be predicted on the basis of a still small amount of information. This task becomes even more complicated if, when analyzing the future, we proceed from the patterns that characterized the past system. This is partly confirmed by the fact that
It is a fact that, essentially, the entire science of international relations, operating with the methodology of explaining the Westphalian system, was unable to foresee the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the change of systems does not occur instantly, but gradually, in the struggle between the new and the old. Apparently, the feeling of increased instability and danger is caused by this variability of the new, as yet incomprehensible world.