New system of international relations. Features and ways of development of modern international relations. Systematic approach to the study of international relations

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.

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 Organization - 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]

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

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

Naturally, in light of the just-ended Cold War, the first conclusion to be drawn was a unipolar world order, supported by the only remaining superpower - the United States of America. Meanwhile, in reality everything turned out to be not so simple. In particular, as some researchers and politicians point out (for example, E.M. Primakov, R. Haas, etc.), with the end of the bipolar world, the very phenomenon of superpower disappeared from the world economic and geopolitical foreground in its traditional understanding: “During the Cold War, war," as long as there were two systems, there were two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States. Today there are no superpowers at all: the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, but the United States, although it has exceptional political influence and is the most powerful state in the world militarily and economically, has lost such status” [Primakov E.M. A world without superpowers [Electronic resource] // Russia in global politics. October 2003 – URL: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/2242.html]. As a result, the role of the United States was declared not as the only one, but as one of several pillars of the new world order.

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

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

Several stages can be distinguished:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, many people accuse Russia of being ambitious and intending to compete with the United States. American researcher A. Cohen writes: “...Russia has noticeably tightened its international policy and is increasingly relying on force rather than international law to achieve its goals... Moscow has intensified its anti-American policies and rhetoric and is ready to challenge US interests where and when possible, including the Far North."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, a trend in modern international relations is globalization, which contradicts the Westphalian system, built on the idea of ​​relatively isolated and self-sufficient states and on the principle of a “balance of power” between them. It is worth noting that globalization is uneven in nature, since the modern world is quite asymmetrical, therefore globalization is considered a contradictory phenomenon of modern international relations. It is necessary to mention that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that was a powerful surge in globalization, at least in the economic sphere, since at the same time transnational corporations with economic interests began to operate actively.

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

Considering the process of globalization, I would like to mention the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, which he said at the “Territory of Meanings” forum: “Now this very model of globalization, including its economic and financial aspects, which this club of the elite has built for itself - the so-called Liberal globalization, in my opinion, is now failing.” That is, it is obvious that the West wants to maintain its dominance in the international arena, however, as noted by Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov in his book “A World without Russia? What political myopia leads to”: “The United States is no longer the sole leader” and this speaks of a new phase in the development of international relations. Thus, it is most objective to consider the future of international relations as the formation of not a multipolar, but rather a polycentric world, since the trend of regional associations leads to the formation of centers of power rather than poles.

Interstate organizations, as well as non-governmental international organizations and transnational corporations (TNCs), play an active role in the development of international relations; in addition, the emergence of international financial organizations and global trade networks has a great influence on the development of international relations, which is also a consequence of the shift in Westphalian principles, where the only actor in international relations was the state. It is worth noting that TNCs may be interested in regional associations, since they are focused on optimizing costs and creating unified production networks, and therefore put pressure on the government to develop a free regional investment and trade regime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to sources:

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

Gulyants Victoria

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.