Factors of forming a new system of international relations. New International Relationship System

UDC 327 (075) G.Krinov

Evolution of the system of international relations and its features at the present stage

Speaking at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" (Schuchi, October 24, 2014) with a report "World Order: New Rules or Game without Rules?", President of Russia V.V. Putin noted that the world system of "checks and counterweights", which established during the Cold War, was destroyed in the active participation of the United States, but the dominance of one center of force led only to the growing chaos in international relations. According to him, the United States, facing the ineffectiveness of the unipolar world, is trying to recreate the "some kind of quasi-oxuolar system", looking for an "image of the enemy" in the face of Iran, China or Russia. The Russian leader believes that the international community is located on a historical fork, where there is a threat to the game without rules in the world order, which in world order should have been "reasonable reconstruction" (1).

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

In this regard, the historical and political analysis of the evolution of the system of international relations and the consideration of possible options for the formation of a new world order on modern stage.

It should be noted that until the middle of the XVII century. international relationships Characterized by the disunity of their participants, the impurity of international interactions, the main manifestation of which were short-term armed conflicts or long war. In different periods, historical hegemones in the world were an ancient Egypt, the Persian Empire, the Power of Alexander Macedonsky, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Empire of Charles Great, the Mongolian Empire of Genghis-Khan, the Ottoman Empire, the Sacred Roman Empire, and others. All of them were focused on establishing their sole dominance, building a unipolar world. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church headed by a papal throne was trying to establish their domination over the peoples and states. International relations had anarchic character and differed a big 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 is beginning since 1648, when the Westphalian world put an end to the thirty-year war in Western Europe and sanctioned the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire for independent states. From this time as the main form political organization Societies are universally approved by the National State (in Western Terminology - "State Nation"), and the dominant principle of international relations becomes the principle of national (ie, state) sovereignty. The main principal provisions of the Westphalian world model were:

The world consists of sovereign states (respectively, there is no single highest power in the world, and the principle of the universalistic management hierarchy is missing);

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

The sovereign state has an unlimited full of power over its citizens within its territory;

The world is regulated by international law, understood as the right of contracts of sovereign states among themselves, which must be observed; - sovereign states act in subjects of international law, only they are internationally recognized subjects;

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

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe national state with sovereignty was four main characteristics: the availability of the territory; the presence of a population living in this area; legitimate population management; Recognition by other national states. For

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

the absence of at least one of these characteristics state becomes sharply limited in its capabilities, or ceases to exist. The basis of the state-centrist model of the world has become "national interests", according to which the search for compromise solutions is possible (and not value guidelines, in particular religious, according to which the compromises are impossible). An important feature of the Westphalian model was the geographical limited sphere of its action. She wore a distinct european-centrist character.

After the Westphalian world entered the custom to keep with foreign courtyards permanent residents, diplomats. For the first time in historical practice, interstate boundaries were punishable and clearly defined. Thanks to this, coalitions began to arise, interstate unions, which gradually began to acquire importance. The papacy has lost importance as a supranational force. States in foreign policy began to be guided by their own interests and ambitions.

At this time, there is a theory of European equilibrium, which gained its development in the works of N. Makiavelli. He offered to establish the balance of power between five Italian states. The theory of European equilibrium will eventually take all of Europe, and it will work up to modernity, being the basis of international unions, coalitions of states.

At the beginning of the XVIII century. At the conclusion of the Utrecht world (1713), which put an end to the struggle for the Spanish legacy between France and Spain, on the one hand, and the coalition of states led by the UK - on the other, the concept of "Balance of Forces" appears (English: Balance of Power) in international documents supplemented by the Westphalian model and received widespread in the political vocabulary of the second half of the XX century. The balance of forces is the distribution of world influence between individual centers of power - poles and can take various configurations: bipolar, three-pole, multipolar (or multipole)

iT. D. The main goal of the balance of forces is to prevent dominance in the international system of one or group of states, to ensure the maintenance of international order.

Based on the views of N. Makiavelli, T. Gobs, as well as A. Smita, J.-Zh.Russo and others. The first theoretical schemes of political realism and liberalism are developing.

With a political point of view, the system of the Westphalian world (sovereign states) exists now, however, with historical - it broke into early XIX. in.

The system of international relations prevailing after Napoleonic wars was regulated by the Vienna Congress 1814-1815. The winner's powers saw the meaning of their collective international activities in creating reliable barriers against the spread of revolutions. Hence the appeal to the ideas of legitimism. The Vienna system of international relations is inherent in the idea of \u200b\u200bthe European concert - the balance of power between European states. "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 the states, but also the coalition of states. "European concert", remaining the form of the hegemony of large states and coalitions, for the first time effectively limited their freedom of action in the international arena.

The Vienna International System approved the balance of power as a result of Napoleonic wars, secured the boundaries of national states. Russia consolidated Finland, Bessarabia and expanded his Western borders by Poland, dividing it with each other, Austria and Prussia.

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

As part of this system, the concept of great powers was formulated for the first time (then, first of all, Russia, Austria, United Kingdom, Prussia), multilateral diplomacy and diplomatic protocol were submitted. Many researchers call the Viennese system of international relations in the first example collective security.

At the beginning of the XX century, new states are published on the world arena. This is primarily USA, Japan, Emania, Italy. From that moment on, Europe ceases to be the only continent where new world leaders are being formed.

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

The world gradually ceases to be an european century, the international system begins to turn into a global.

Versailles-Washington system of international relations - multipolar world order, the foundations of which were laid down on completion of the First World War, 1914-1918. Versailles peace treaty 1919, agreements with allies of Germany agreements concluded at the Washington Conference 1921-1922.

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

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

what made this structure vulnerable due to the requirements of its transformation and did not contribute long-term stability in global affairs. Its characteristic feature was the anti-Soviet orientation. The greatest benefit from the Versailles system was obtained by the United Kingdom, France and the United States. At this time in Russia went civil War, the victory of which remained behind the Bolsheviks.

The US refusal to participate in the functioning of the Versailles system, the isolation of Soviet Russia and the antighermanized direction turned it into an unbalanced and controversial system, thereby increasing the potential of the future world conflict.

It should be noted that the composite part of the Versailles peace treaty was the charter of the League of Nations-Menstrial Organization, which determined the development of cooperation between nations, guarantees of their peace and security as the main objectives. Initially, it was signed by 44 states. The United States has not ratified this agreement and did not become among the members of the League of Nations. Then the USSR did not enter it, as well as Germany.

One of the key in the creation of the League of Nations was the idea of \u200b\u200bcollective security. It was assumed that states are legal entitled to resist the aggressor. In practice, as you know, it was not possible to do, and the world in 1939 was plunged into a new world War. The League of Nations actually ceased to exist in 1939, although it was formally dissolved in 1946. However, many elements of the structure and procedures, as well as the main objectives of the League of Nations, were numbered by the United Nations (UN).

The Washington system spreading to the Asia-Pacific region differed somewhat large equilibrium, but was also not universal. Its instability caused the uncertainty of the political development of China, the Military foreign policy of Japan, the then insulatingism of the United States, etc. Starting with the "Monroe doctrine", the policy of isolationism spawned one most important feature of the American foreign Policy - a tendency to one-sided action (unilateralism).

Yalta-Potsdam System of International Relations - Systems of International Relations, Enchantable by Treaties and Agreements on the Yaltaic (4-11 February 1945) and Potsdam (July 17 - August 2, 1945) Conferences of the Heads of State of the Anti-Hitler Coalition.

For the first time, the issue of post-war settling at the highest level was added during the Tehran Conference of 1943, where the position of the two powers - the USSR and the USA, and the United States, to which the decisive role passes the decisive role in determining the parameters of the post-war world, was quite clearly clearly manifested. The progress of the war originates the prerequisites for the formation of the foundation of the future of the Bipolar world. This tendency has been fully manifested in Yalta and Potsdam conferences when main role In solving key problems related to the formation of a new model of international relations, two were now superpined, the USSR and the USA. The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations was characterized by:

Absence (in contrast, for example, from the Versailles-Washington system) the necessary legal framework, which made it very vulnerable to criticism and recognition by some states;

Bipolarity on the basis of the military-political superiority of two superpowers (USSR and the USA) over the rest of the countries. Around them there was a block formation (ATS and NATO). Bipolarity was not exhausted only by the military-force superiority of the two states, it covered almost all spheres - social and political, economic, ideological, scientific and technical, cultural, etc.;

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

Confrontation, meaning that the parties constantly opposed their actions to each other. Competition, rivalry and antagonism, and not cooperation between the blocks was the leading characteristics of relations;

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

Political and ideological confrontation between the West and East, capitalism and socialism, which introduced additional uncompromising in international relations with disagreements and conflicts;

The relatively high degree of manageability of international processes due to the fact that it was necessary to harmonize the positions of actually only two superpowers (5, p.21-22). Post-war realities, the intransigence of confrontational relations between the USSR and the United States, significantly limited the possibility of the UN to implement their statutory functions and goals.

The United States wanted to establish American hegemony under the slogan "Pax Americana" in the world, and the USSR sought to approve socialism on a global scale. Ideological confrontation, "wrestling ideas", led to a mutual demonization of the opposite side and remained an important feature post-war system international relations. The system of international relations associated with the opposition of two blocks was called "bipolar".

During these years, the arms race, and then its restriction, the problems of military security were central questions of international relations. In general, the tough rivalry of two blocks, which has repeatedly threatened to pour out into the new world war, got the name of the Cold War (English: Cold War). The Caribbean (Cuban) crisis of 1962 was a dangerous moment in the history of the post-war period, when the United States and the USSR seriously discussed the possibility of nuclear strike.

Both opposing blocks had in total political unions - the organization

North Atlantane Treaty, NATO (English: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; NATO), formed in 1949, and the organization of the Warsaw Treaty (ATS) - In 1955, the concept of "Balance of Forces" was one of the key elements of the Yalta-Potsdam . The world turned out to be "divided" on the zone of influence between two blocks. For them, a fierce struggle was conducted.

A significant stage in the development of the political system of the world was the colonialism. In the 1960s, almost the entire African continent was liberated from colonial dependence. Developing countries began to influence the political development of the world. They entered the UN, and in 1955 they formed a movement of non-aligned (Eng .: Nonaligned Movement), which, according to the creators, should opposed two opposing blocks.

The destruction of the colonial system, the formation of regional and subregional subsystems was carried out under the dominant influence of the horizontal distribution of systemic bipolar opposition and increasing trends in economic and political globalization.

The end of the Potsdam era was marked by the collapse of the world socialist camp that followed the fault attempt to Gorbachev's perestroika, and was

fastened by Belovezhsk agreements 1991

After 1991, a fragile and contradiction of the Belovezhskaya system of international relations (Western researchers call it POST COLD-WAR ERA), which is characterized by polycentric unipolarity. The essence of this world order was to implement a historical project for the distribution of standards of Western "neoliberal democracy" to the whole world. Political analysts were invented by the "Concept of American Global Leadership" in the "soft" and "tough" form. At the heart of "tough hegemony" were ideas about the United States as a single state with sufficient economic and military power to implement the idea of \u200b\u200bglobal leadership. To consolidate its exclusive status of the United States, according to this concept, it should, if possible, exacerbate the gap between themselves and the rest of the states. "Soft hegemony", according to this concept, is aimed at creating an image of the United States as a model for the whole world: seeking to lead to the leading position in the world, America should gently put pressure on other states and convinced their strength of its own example.

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

American hegemonism received an expression in presidential doctrines: Truman,

Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush - endowed the United States during the Cold War period almost unlimited rights to ensure security in a particular region of the world; The basis of the Clinton's doctrine was the thesis on the "expansion of democracy" in Eastern Europe in order to turn the former socialist states to the "Strategic Reserve" of the West. The United States (within the framework of NATO operations) twice carried out armed intervention in Yugoslavia - in Bosnia (1995) and in Kosovo (1999). The "expansion of democracy" received its expression and in the composition of the North Atlantic Alliance in 1999. For the first time, former members of the organization of the Warsaw Treaty were included - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic; The doctrine of the "tough" hegemony J. Bush-younger was an answer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 and relied on three pillars: unsurpassed military power, the concept of preventive war and unilateralism. As a potential opponent in the "Doctrine of Bush", states that support terrorism or developing weapons of mass destruction - speaking to Congress in 2002 President used the expression "axis evil" in relation to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The White House categorically refused to conduct a dialogue with similar modes and declared determination by all means (up to armed intervention) to contribute to their liquidation. Frankly hegemonic aspirations of the administration of J. Bush Jr., and then B.obama catalyzed the growth of anti-American sentiment worldwide, including the activation of an "asymmetric response" in the form of transnational terrorism (3, p.256-257).

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

Finally, this project violated the balance of strength and did not have a contractual base at all, to which he drew in his Valdai speech in the city of Sochi V.V. Putin (1). It was based on the chain of precedents and one-sided doctrines and the concepts of the United States, which was mentioned above (2, p.112).

First, the events associated with the collapse of the USSR, the end of the Cold War, etc., in many countries, primarily Western, were perceived with enthusiasm and even romanticism. In 1989, in the United States appeared Article Francis Fukuyama (F. Fukuyama) "End of History?" (The End of the History?), And in 1992 his book "End of History and the Last Man." In them, the author predicted the celebration, the triumph of the liberal democracy of the Western sample, which leads this indicates the end point of the sociocultural evolution of humanity and the formation of the final form of the government, the end of the century of ideological confrontations, global revolutions and wars, art and philosophy, and with them - about the end Stories (6, p.68-70; 7, p. 234-237).

The concept of "end history" had big influence The formation of the US President George Bush's foreign policy course and actually became the "canonical text" of neoconservatives, since the main goal of their foreign policy was consonant - to actively promote the liberal democracy of the Western style and the free market around the world. And after the events of September 11, 2011, the Bush administration concluded that the historical forecast of Fukuyama is passive and history needs a conscious organization, leadership and management in the appropriate spirit, including by changing non-profit regimes as a key component of anti-terrorism policy.

Then, in the early 1990s, a splash of conflicts was followed, and in a calm, it would seem, Europe (which caused special concerns and Europeans, and Americans). It gave rise to the opposite moods. Samuel Huntington (S. Huntington) in 1993 in the article "Collision of Civilizations" (The Cloash of Civilizations) spoke from opposite F. Fukuyam positions, predicting conflicts on a civilization basis (8, p.53-54). In the book published in 1996, S. Huntington was trying to prove the thesis on the inevitability in the near future confrontation between the Islamic and Western worlds, which will resemble the Soviet-American confrontation during the Cold War (9, p.348-350). These publications also received a wide discussion in different countries. Then, when the number of armed conflicts went to the decline, there was a cease-fire and in Europe, the idea of \u200b\u200bS. Huntington about civilizational wars began to forget. However, the surge of cruel and demonstrative terrorist acts in the early 2000s in various parts of the globe (especially the explosion of twin tower in the United States on September 11, 2001), hooligan pogroms in the cities of France, Belgium and other countries of Europe taken by the people from Asia countries, Africa and the Middle East made many, especially journalists, again

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

talk about the conflict of civilizations. Discharged discussions regarding the causes and features of modern terrorism, nationalism and extremism, the confronters of the rich "North" and the poor "South" and others.

Today, the principle of American hegemony is contrary to the factor of increasing heterogeneity of the world, in which states coexist with different socioeconomic, political, cultural and value systems. Unreal

the project of the spread of the Western model of liberal democracy, lifestyle, system of values \u200b\u200bis also presented, as the general norms adopted by all or at least by most states of the world. It is opposed to equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification on the ethnic, national, religious principle, which is expressed in the growth of the influence of nationalist, traditionalist and fundamentalist ideas in the world. In addition to sovereign states, transnational and supranational associations are becoming more and independent players on the world arena. The modern international system distinguishes a colossal increase in the number of interactions between its various participants at different levels. As a result, it becomes not only more interdependent, but also mutually, which requires the creation of new and reform of existing institutions and mechanisms to maintain stability (such as the UN, IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, EAEU, BRICS, SCO, etc.). Therefore, in contrasts the idea of \u200b\u200bthe "unipolar world", the thesis on the need for the development and strengthening of a multipolar model of international relations as the system of "equilibrium of force" is admitted. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that any multipolar system in a critical situation tends to transform into bipolar. This clearly shows a sharp Ukrainian crisis.

Thus, the story knows 5 models of the system of international relations. Each of the models consistently replaced each other took place in its development through several phases: from the formation phase to the decay phase. Up to World War II, the inclusive source point of the next cycle in the transformation of the system of international relations was large military conflicts. In the course of their cardinal rearrangement of forces, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries was changed, a serious border crossing took place. These moves allowed to eliminate old pre-war contradictions, clear the road for a new round of development.

The emergence of nuclear weapons and the achievement of parity in this area between the USSR and the United States constrained from direct military conflicts, the confrontation increased in economics, ideology, culture, although there were local military conflicts. According to objective and subjective reasons, the USSR collapsed, and behind it the socialist unit, the bipolar system ceased to act.

But an attempt to establish a unipolar American hegemony today tolerates collapse. The new world order is able to be born only as a result of joint creativity of the members of the world community. One of the optimal forms of global management can be a collective (cooperative) management carried out through a flexible network system whose cells would perform international organizations (Updated UN, WTO, EU, EAEP, etc.), trade economic, information, telecommunication, transport and other systems. This global system will differ in high dynamics of changes, have several growth points and change simultaneously in several directions.

The emerging world system, given the balance of power, may be polycentric, and its centers themselves diversified, so that the global force structure will be multi-level and multidimensional (military centers will not coincide with the centers of economic power, etc.). The centers of the world system will possess both general features and a political, social, economic, ideological and civilizational feature.

Ideas and suggestions of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin was expressed at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Schi October 24, 2014 in this spirit, will be analyzed by the world community and implemented in international contractual practice. This was the confirmation of this was signed on November 11, 2014 in the city of Beijing at the APEC summit agreement between the United States and China (Obama and Si Jinping signed agreements on the opening of the US domestic market for China, about the notification of each other about the desire to enter "Okoloterritorial" water and others .). The proposals of the President of the Russian Federation were attributed to the G20 summit in Brisbane (Australia) November 14-16, 2014

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

Today, on the basis of these ideas, values \u200b\u200bthere is a controversial process of transformation of a unipolar world into a new multipolar system of international relations based on the balance of power.

LITERATURE:

1. Putin, V.V. World order: new rules or game without rules? / V.V. Putin // Banner. - 2014.24 October.

2. Kortunov, S.V. The wreck of the Westphalian system and the formation of a new world order / S.V.Cortunov // World Politics. - M.: GU-HSE, 2007. - P. 45-63.

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

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

5. Systemic history of international relations: 4 tons / ed. Dr.p., prof. A. D Bogaturov. -T.1.- M.: 2000. - 325С.-1-T

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

7. Fukuyama, Francis. End of history and the last person / F. Fukuyam; Per. from English M. B.

Levin. - M.: Act, 2007. - 347c.

8. Huntington, C. Collision of civilizations / S.Hhanginton // Polis. - 1994. - N ° 1. - p.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. Collision of civilizations / S. Zhanginton. - M.: Act, 2003. - 351c.

1. Putin, v.V. T He World Order: The New Rules or a Game Worthout 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 // Voprosi 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 Cloash of Civilizations / S. Huntington // Polis. -1994. - # 1.-P.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. The Cloash of Civilizations / S. Huntington. - m .: Ast, 2003. - 351p.

Evolution of the system of international relations and its features at the present stage

Keywords: evolution; system of international relations; Westphalian system; Viennese system; Versailles-Washington system; Yalta-Potsdam system; Belovezhskaya system.

In the article with historical and political positions, the process of transformation, evolution, established in different periods, systems of international relations is considered. Special attention is paid to the analysis and identification of the peculiarities of the Westphalian, Vienna, Versailles-Washington, Yalta-Potsdam systems. New in the research plan is to allocate in Article since 1991, the Belovezhskaya system of international relations and its characteristics. The author also concludes about the formation of a new system of international relations on the basis of ideas, proposals, values \u200b\u200bexpressed by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Sochi October 24, 2014

The article concludes that today there is a controversial process of transformation of a 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 Belovezhsk System.

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * 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 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, VALUSIAN FEDERATION V.V. Putin at the Plenary Session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Sochi, October 24, 2014. The Paper Draws a Conclusion of Today The CONTROVERSIAL PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION OF THE UNIPOOL WORLD HAS CHATED INTO A NEW MULTIPOLAR SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL REALATIONS.

Kristov Grigory Nikandrovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Political Science, History, Social Technologies of Moscow state University Railways, (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 Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, which arose after the Second World War was part of the Westphalian model of the world, based on the primacy of the sovereignty of the National State. This system was enshrined by the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, approved by the principle of irrevomination of state borders in Europe.

An exceptional positive feature of Yalta-Potsdamsky order was a high degree of manageability of international processes.

The system was built on the coordination of the opinions of two superpowers, which were at the same time the leaders of the largest military-political blocks: NATO and the organization of the Warsaw Treaty (ATS). Blocked discipline guaranteed the execution of solutions adopted by the leaders, the other members of these organizations. Exceptions were extremely rare. For example, for ATS, there was no exception to Romania refusal in 1968 to support the commissioning of the block of block in Czechoslovakia.

In addition, the USSR and the United States had their spheres of influence in the Third World, to which the so-called developing countries believed. Decision of economic I. social problems In most of these countries, and the strength of the powerful positions of specific political forces and figures, to one degree or another (in other cases - absolutely) depended on the help and support from the part. Superstalls used this circumstance in their own interests, directly or indirectly determining the foreign policy behavior of the third-world countries oriented.

The state of confrontation in which the United States and the USSR constantly located, NATO and the OVD led to the fact that the parties systematically took steps hostile to each other, but at the same time they would ensure that the collisions and peripheral conflicts did not create a threat of a big war. Both parties adhered to the concept of nuclear power holding and strategic stability based on the "fear equilibrium".

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

The factor not allowed this system to acquire long-term positive stability, the ideological confrontation appeared. The geopolitical rivalry of the USSR and the United States was only an external expression of the confrontation of various systems of social and ethical values. On the one hand, the ideals of equality, social justice, collectivism, priority of intangible values; On the other, freedom, competition, individualism, material consumption.

The ideological polarization has determined the intrinsicity of the parties, made it impossible to refuse their strategic installation to the absolute victory over the carriers of antagonistic ideology, over the opposite socio-political system.

The result of this global confrontation is known. Without going into details, we note - it was not non-alternative. In the defeat and decay of the USSR, the main role was played by the so-called human factor. Authoritative political scientists S.V. Kortunov and A.I. Nukin, analyzing the reasons for what happened, independently came from each other to the opinion that the transition of the USSR to the open society and the legal state could be carried out without decaying the country if not a number of gross miscalculations allowed by the ruling elite late Soviet Union.

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

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

The new system of international relations is still in the formation stage. The tightness is explained by the fact that the manageability of global processes was lost: countries that were previously in the sphere of Soviet influence were not some time in an uncontrolled state; The country's influence countries, in the absence of a common enemy, began to act more independently; "fragmentation of the world", expressed in the intensification of separatist movements, ethnic and conflict conflicts; In international relations, the value of force has grown.

The situation in the world 20 years after the collapse of the USSR and the Yalta-Potsdam system does not give reason to believe that the previous level of manageability is restored by world processes. And most likely, in the foreseeable future, "global development processes will remain in their nature and proceeding predominantly spontaneous."

Today, many factors affect the formation of a new system of international relations. We indicate only the most important:

first, globalization. It is expressed in the internationalization of the economy, expanding information flows, capital, people themselves around the world with ever more transparent borders. As a result of globalization, the world is becoming increasingly holistic and interdependent. Any more or less noticeable shifts in one part of the world have echo in other parts. However, globalization is a controversial process having both negative consequences that have stimulating states to the adoption of insulating personnel;

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

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

fourth - deepening social inequality in the world community, strengthening the division of global society on the world of wealth and stability ("Golden Billion") and the world of poverty, instability, conflicts. Between these world poles, or, as it is customary to speak "North" and "South", the opposition is growing. It feeds radical movements, is one of the sources. international terrorism. "South" wants to restore justice and for the sake of it, the disadvantaged masses can support any "Al -Kid", any tyrant.

In general, in world development, two tendencies are configured: one - to integrate and universalize the world, increasing international cooperation and the second - to disintegration and decay of the world for several opposing regional political or even military-political associations on the basis of general economic interests, upholding the right of their peoples on Development and prosperity.

All this makes it seriously refer to the forecast of the English researcher Ken Bess: "The new century, ... maybe there will be more like a pedestrous and restless Middle Ages than on the static twentieth century, but will take into account the lessons learned from the other."

Since ancient times, international relations were one of important parties Life of any country, society and even a separate personality. The formation and development of individual states, the emergence of borders, the formation of various spheres of human life led to the emergence of numerous interactions that are implemented both between countries and with interstate unions and other organizations.

In modern conditions of globalization, when almost all states are involved in a network of such interactions that affect not only the economy, production, consumption, but also to culture, values \u200b\u200band ideals, the role of international relations is overestimated and becomes increasingly significant. There is a need to consider the question of what these international relations are, how their development occurs, what role the state is played in these processes.

The origins of the concept

The emergence of the term "international relations" is associated with the formation of a state as sovereign education. The formation at the end of the XVIII century in Europe of the system of independent powers led to a decrease in the authority of the reigning monarchies and dynasties. A new entity of relations appears on the world stage - the National State. Conceptual basis The creation of the latter is the category of sovereignty formed by Jean Boden in the middle of the XVI century. The thinker saw the future of the state in the separation of him from the claims of the Church and provided the monarch all the completeness and indivisibility of power in the country, as well as its independence from other powers. In the middle of the XVII century, a Westphalian peace treaty was signed, which consolidated the preceded doctrine of sovereign powers.

By the end of the XVIII century, the western part of Europe is a current system of nations-states. The interaction between them, as between nations, the corresponding name was obtained - international relations. This category in the scientific turnover first introduced the English scientist J. Bentam. His vision of the global device was much overwritten. Even then the theory developed by the philosopher assumed the refusal to colonies, the creation of international judicial bodies and the army.

The emergence and development of the theory

Researchers note that the theory of international relations is contradictory: it, on the one hand, is very old, and on the other - young. It is explained by the fact that the origins of the emergence of research of international relations are related to the emergence of states, peoples. Already in ancient times, thinkers considered the problems of wars and ensure order, peaceful relations between countries. At the same time, as a separate systematized branch of knowledge, the theory of international relations was made relatively recently - in the middle of the last century. In the postwar years, the revaluation of world law and order is reassessing, attempts are made to create conditions for peaceful cooperation between countries, international organizations and unions of state are formed.

The development of new types of interactions, the emergence of new subjects in the international arena led to the need to allocate the subject of science that studies international relations, freed from the influence of such adjacent disciplines, as the right and sociology. The sectoral variety of the latter is formed to this day, studying the individual aspects of international interactions.

Basic paradigms

Speaking about the theory of international relations, it is necessary to refer to the works of researchers who devoted their work to considering relations between the powers, trying to find the foundations of the world order. Since the theory of international relations was taken into an independent discipline relatively recently, it should be noted that its theoretical provisions developed in the direction of philosophy, political science, sociology, rights and other sciences.

Russian scientists allocate in the classical theory of international relations three main paradigms.

1. Traditional, or classical, whose source is considered an ancient Greek Thinner Fucdide. Historian, considering the causes of wars, comes to the fact that the main regulator of relations between countries is the factor of force. States, being independent, are not related to any specific obligations and can use a power advantage to achieve their goals. This direction was developed in their writings and other scientists, including N. Makiavelli, T. Gobbs, E. De Wattel and others.
2. The idealistic, the provisions of which are presented in the works of I. Kant, G. Grotia, F. De Vittoria and others. The emergence of this area was preceded by the development of Christianity and Stoicism in Europe. The idealistic vision of international relations is based on the idea of \u200b\u200bthe unity of the whole human race and inalienable personal rights. Human rights, according to thinkers, are priorities in relation to the state, and the unity of humanity leads to the secondaryness of the very idea of \u200b\u200bthe sovereign power, which in these conditions loses its original meaning.
3. The Marxist interpretation of relations between the countries proceeded from the idea of \u200b\u200boperating the proletariat of the bourgeoisie and the struggle between these classes, which will lead to unification within each and the formation of a world society. Under these conditions, the concept of a sovereign state also becomes secondary, since national output will gradually disappear with the development of the World Market, Free Trade and other factors.

In modern theory of international relations, other concepts appeared, which develop the provisions of the paradigms presented.

History of international relations

Its beginning of scientists are associated with the advent of the first signs of statehood. The first international relations are considered to be those who have been between the ancient states and tribes. In history you can find a lot of such examples: Byzantium and Slavic tribes, Roman Empire and German community.

In the Middle Ages, the peculiarity of international relations was that they were not between states, as it happens today. Their initiators became, as a rule, influential operators of the powers: emperors, princes, representatives of various dynasties. They concluded agreements, they took over the obligations, unleashed military conflicts, replacing the interests of the country with their own, identifying themselves with the state as such.

As society, there are also the features of interactions. The history of international relations considers the appearance of the concept of sovereignty and the development of the national state in the late XVIII - early XIX century. During this period, a qualitatively different type of relationship between countries was preserved to the present day.

Concept

The current definition of what international relations are complicated by many connections and areas of interactions in which they are implemented. An additional obstacle is the sequity of the separation of relations to domestic and international relations. It is quite common is an approach that is based on the definition contains subjects implementing international interactions. Textbooks determine international relations as a certain combination of various relationship relations both between states and between other subjects acting on the world arena. Today, their number, except for states, began to include organizations, associations, social movements, social groups, etc.

The most promising approach to definition sends the selection of criteria, allowing to degrade this type of relationships from any other.

Features of international relations

It is possible to deal with international relations, to understand their nature will allow the consideration of the characteristic features of these interactions.

1. The complexity of this kind of relations is determined by their spontaneous character. The number of participants in these connections is constantly growing, new subjects are included, which is why it is difficult to predict changes.
2. Recently, the positions of the subjective factor intensified, which was reflected in the increasing role of the political component.
3. The inclusion in the relationship of various spheres of life, as well as the expansion of the circle of political participants: from individual leaders to organizations and movements.
4. The absence of a single center of influence due to many independent and equal relations of relations.

All diversity of international relations is customary to classify on the basis of various criteria, including:

• spheres: economics, culture, politics, ideology, etc.;
• intensity level: high or low;
• from the standpoint of voltage: stable / unstable;
• the geopolitical criterion of their implementation: global, regional, subregional.

On the basis of the criteria, the concept under consideration can be designated as a special type of social relations, which goes beyond any territorial education or internally interoperable interactions. Such a question is required to find out how international policies and international relations relate.

Interrelation of policies and international relations

Before deciding with the ratio of these concepts, we note that the term "international policy" is also complicated in the definition and is a certain abstract category, which allows to allocate their political component in relations.

Speaking about the interaction of countries in the international arena, people often use the concept of "world politics". It is an active component that allows you to influence international relations. If you compare the world and international policies, the first is much more widely covered and is characterized by the presence of participants in a different level: from the state to international organizations, unions and individual influential entities. While the interaction between states is more accurately revealed with such categories such as international policies and international relations.

Formation of the system of international relations

At various stages of the development of the world community between its participants, certain interactions are developing. The main subjects of these relations are several powers of leaders and international organizations that can influence other participants. An organized form of such interactions is a system of international relations. It includes:

• ensuring stability in the world;
• cooperation in solving world problems in different fields of activity;
• creating conditions for the development of other participants in relations, ensuring their safety and maintain integrity.

The first system of international relations was still in the middle of the XVII century (Westphalian), its appearance is due to the development of the doctrine of sovereignty and the emergence of nations-states. She existed three and a half century. All this period, the main subject of relations in the international arena is the state.

In the era of the heyday of the Westphalian system of interaction between countries, there are on the basis of rivalry, the struggle for the expansion of spheres of influence and increasing the power. Regulation of international relations is implemented on the basis of international law.

A feature of the twentieth century was the rapid development of sovereign states and a change in the system of international relations, which was subjected to a rapid restructuring three times. It should be noted that none of the previous centuries boast such radical changes.

The last century brought two world wars. The first led to the creation of a Versailles system, which, destroying the balance in Europe, clearly identified two antagonistic camps: the Soviet Union and the capitalist world.

The second led to the formation of a new system, which ranked Yalta-Potsdam. During this period, the split between imperialism and socialism is increasing, opposing centers are designated: the USSR and the United States, which divide the world into two opposing camps. The period of the existence of this system was also marked by the collapse of the colonies and the emergence of the so-called states of the Third World.

The role of the state in the new system of relations

The current period of the development of the global device is characterized by the fact that the formation of a new system, the predecessor of which suffered the collapse at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the collapse of the USSR and the series of Eastern European velvet revolutions.

According to scientists, the formation of the third system and the development of international relations has not yet ended. This is evidenced not only that today the ratio of forces in the world is not determined, but also the fact that new principles of interactions between countries have not been developed. The emergence of new political forces in the form of organizations and movements, association of powers, international conflicts and wars allow us to conclude that now there is a complex and painful process of formation of norms and principles, in accordance with which a new system of international relations will be built.

Special attention of researchers attracts such a question as a state in international relations. Scientists emphasize that today the doctrine of sovereignty is subjected to serious tests, since the state has largely lost its independence. Enhances these threats to the globalization process, which makes the borders are increasingly transparent, and the economy and production are increasingly dependent.

But at the same time, modern international relations put forward a number of requirements for states that are only this Social Institute. In such conditions, there is a shift from traditional functions to new, which go beyond the usual.

Role of economics

Today, international economic relations are performed a special role, since this type of interaction has become one of the driving forces of globalization. The world economy-developing today can be submitted in the form of a global economy that unites various sectors of specialization of national economic systems. All of them are included in a single mechanism, the elements of which interact and are dependent on each other.

International economic relations existed before the emergence of world economy and were associated with a branch within continents or regional associations. The main subjects of such relations are states. In addition to them, the Group of Participants includes gigantic corporations, international organizations and associations. The regulatory institute of these interactions is the right of international relations.

The main milestones of the newest history of international relations. Ethnhemographic picture of the world.

The history of international relations is a science that studies a set of economic, political, cultural relations between countries and peoples of the world in historical dynamics. As diverse, international relations are ambiguous in assessing scientists and politicians, this science is so complex, interesting and informative. As well as politics, economics, culture is interdependent within the framework of a separate state and at the level of international relations, these components are inseparable. In the history of international relations of the XX century. It is possible to distinguish five basic periods.

1 - from the beginning of the century in the first world war inclusive;

2 - the formation and development of new European equilibrium in the framework of the Versailles system of international relations; It is completed by the collapse of the Versailles world order and the establishment of German hegemony in Europe;

3 is the history of international relations during the Second World War; completed with the design of the bipolar structure of the world;

4 - the period of the "Cold War" East - West and the split of Europe;

5 - the time of global changes in the world related to the crisis and decomposition of socialism, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the formation of a new world order.

Xx in. He became a century of globalization of world processes, strengthening the interdependence of states and peoples of the world. The foreign policy of the leading states is more politically conjured with the interests of not only adjacent, but also geographically remote countries. Simultaneously with global systems of international relations in Europe, their peripheral subsystems in the near and Far East, central and South America etc.

The development of world civilization in general and individual countries is largely determined by the relationship of inhabitants of the nations.

Xx in. It was marked by the rapid development of international relations, the complication of combinations of the interaction of countries in politics, economics, ideology, culture, religion. Interstate relations have reached a new level, turning into relatively sustainable 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 population of the country, its ethnodemographic composition.

One of the main trends of recent centuries was a sharp increase in the population. If in the first 15th centuries of our era, the population of the globe has grown only 2.5 times, then during the XVI - XIX centuries. The number of people has increased almost 10 times. In 1900, there were 1630 million people in the world. Currently, the inhabitants of the planet Earth is already more than 6 billion. The inhabited countries are China (a little less than 1.5 billion) and

India (more than 1 billion people).

Researchers are in the modern world from 3.5 to 4 thousand different peoples - from the largest nations to the smallest tribes with a population in dozens of people. In general, the definition national composition In various countries - an extremely difficult thing. In international relations, one of the defining factors is the awareness of the people as a single nation consolidated around the national idea (and sometimes it is not easy to find). In Europe, where there are mainly large nations, about 60 large nations stand out.

The most common languages \u200b\u200bof the world include:

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

There are almost two thirds of humanity in these languages. The official and working languages \u200b\u200bof the UN are English, French, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese.

RELIGION. With the development of society, the strengthening of contacts between peoples arise broader than earlier, religious communities; the same religion can confess different peoples. To the twentieth century Most large modern peoples belonged to one of the world's religions - Christianity, Buddhism or Islam.

From the forerunner of these religions, you can allocate:

Judaism is the first monotheistic religion, appeared in the ancient Jews;

Zoroastrianism is the basis of its dualism - the idea of \u200b\u200bthe confrontation of good and evil began;

Confucianism and Taoism (religious-ethical and philosophical doctrines arising in Ancient China);

Hinduism for whom it is characterized by faith in the resettlement of souls;

Sinto (Japan).

If you try to present the population of the Earth through the prism of a confessional affiliation, it will turn out:

Christians - more than 1 billion, of which:

- Catholics - about 600 million;

- Protestants - about 350 million;

- Orthodox - about 80 million.

Interestingly, most Catholics and Protestants live currently in the new world.

Islam professes more than 800 million people, of which

- Sunnis - 730 million;

- Shiites - 70 million.

Hinduism is an ancient religion of India - worship 520 million people. Despite such a number of adepts (adherents), this religion is not among the world, as it is purely national.

Buddhism - the oldest of world religions - profess about 250 million people.

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

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

The global scale and the radicality of changes in the political, economic, spiritual areas of life of the world community, in the field of military security, allow you to put forward assumptions about the formation

a new system of international relations other than those operated throughout the twentieth century, and in many respects, and starting from the classic Westphalian system.

In the global and domestic literature, a more or less sustainable approach to the systematization of international relations, depending on their content, the composition of the participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that the actual international (interstate) relations originated during the formation of national states on the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The completion of the "thirty-year war" is being made for the reference in Europe and the conclusion of the Westphalian world of 1648. Since then, the entire 350-year period of international cooperation is considered by many, especially Western, researchers, as the history of the Unified Westphalian system. The dominant subjects of this system are sovereign states. The system does not have the highest referee, therefore states are independent in conducting internal policies within their national borders and in principle equal.

Most scientists 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 - prevent this. The outcome of rivalry, as a rule, was determined by the ratio of forces between the states or unions into which they joined to implement their foreign policy goals. Establishing equilibrium, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations; Balance of forces ultimately led to war and restoring it in a new configuration reflecting the strengthening of the influence of some states at the expense of others. This system for clarity and simplification is compared with the movement of billiard balls. States face each other, forming changing configurations, and then moving again in an infinite struggle for influence or safety. Chief Principle At the same time - own benefit. The main criterion is power.

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

states. At the same time usually allocate:

- a system of mainly Anglo-French rivalry in Europe and the struggle for the colonies in the XVII-XVIII centuries;

- the system of "European concert of nations" or "Vienna Congress" of the XIX century;

- Versailles-Washington system between the two world wars;

- Cold War system, or Yalta Potsdam.

Obviously, in the second half of the 80s - early 90s. Xx in. In international relations, cardinal changes occurred, which allow us to talk about the completion of the "Cold War" and the formation of new system-forming patterns.

Most foreign and domestic international internationalists take as a watershed between the "Cold War" and the current stage of international relations a wave of political changes in the countries of Central Europe in the fall of 1989, and a visual example consider the fall of the Berlin Wall. The obvious distinctive moments of the origin of the new system compared with the previous one is the removal of the political and ideological confrontation between the "anti-communism" and "communism" due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the coagulation of military confrontation of the blocks grouped during the "Cold War" around two poles - Washington and Moscow.

Recently, pessimistic composures are increasingly sounding that a 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 a new one with the old, and the feeling of increased instability and danger is caused by the variability of the new and incomprehensible world.

V.Yu. Peskov

graduate student of the Department of International Relations, World Economy and International Law, PGLU

V.V. Deheev Doctor of Historical Sciences, MGIMO (Y)

The main trends of modern international relations

Until now, the policy was considered by us within the borders of national states, where her subjects were identified, social groups (classes, layers), parties, movements, pursuing individual and group interests. However, independent states themselves do not develop in vacuo, they interact with each other and actually act as a higher level policies - international.

If at the beginning of the XX century. There were only 52 independent states in the world, then by the middle of the century there were already 82, and today they exceed it 200. All these states and peoples inhabiting them interact in various fields human life. States are not in isolation, they must establish relationships with their neighbors. Relationships, developing between states, is customary to be called international. International relations are a combination of economic, political, ideological, legal, military, information, diplomatic and other relations and relations between states and systems of states, between the main social, economic and political forces, organizations and movements on the world arena.

International policy is the core of international relations. It represents political activities subjects of international law (states, etc.) related to the decision of the issues of war and peace, providing issues of universal security, security ambient, overcoming backwardness and poverty, hunger and disease.

1 P8U [Email Protected]shapgy.

Thus, an international policy is aimed at solving issues of the survival and progress of human society, the production of mechanisms for coordinating the interests of the interests of world politics, preventing and resolving global and regional conflicts, creating a fair world order. It is an important factor in stability and peace, the development of equality of international relations.

Political analysts allocate 4 groups of subjects of international relations:

1. National states. These are the main subjects of foreign policy activities. They enter different relations among themselves at the global and regional levels.

2. Interstate associations. This includes the coalitions of states, military-political blocks (for example, NATO), integrated organizations (for example, the European Union), political associations (for example, the League of Arab States, Association of American states). These unions on an interstate basis play in modern politics an extremely important role.

3. Interstate government organizations. This is a special type of associations, which includes representatives of most countries of the world with often inappropriate political interests. Such organizations are created to discuss problems with universal importance and to coordinate the activities of the global community (for example, the UN).

4. Non-state / non-governmental international organizations and movements. They are active subjects of world politics. These include international associations of political parties, professional associations (for example, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions), unification of young people, students, pacifist movements (for example, the movement of supporters of the world).

Relations between states can take various forms: allied relations, when states are partners, actively

collaborate in various fields and conclude unions; Neutral relations, when business contacts are being established between states, but they are not poured into allied relations; Conflict relations when states act with territorial or / other claims against each other and take active actions for their satisfaction.

In the mid-1970s. XX century in Helsinki in the final act of the Safety and Cooperation Meeting in Europe (currently this international structure is called the OSCE - the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) The basic principles of modern international relations were formulated: sovereign equality of states; irrevomination of the established boundaries; non-use of the strength or threat of force in interstate relations; territorial integrity states; Peaceful settlement of disputes; non-interference in the internal affairs of other states; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; Equality and the right of peoples to dispose of their own destiny; Cooperation between states and conscientious fulfillment by States of obligations under international law.

Modern international relations are built on a bilateral or multilateral basis, are global or regional.

Before the theory of international relations to designate the interaction of sovereign states was used by the concept of "foreign policy". Foreign policy is a general course of the state in international affairs. Foreign policy activities of state represents a kind of means of their adaptation to specific external conditions. These conditions do not depend on the will, desires and intentions of a separate state and not always correspond to its interests and motivation settings. Therefore, States in the process of implementing their foreign policy function have to reware

needs, goals and interests defined by their internal development with objective conditions in the system.

The main goals of foreign policy are: ensuring the security of this state; The desire to increase the material, political, military, intellectual, etc. The country's potential; The growth of its prestige in international relations.

In addition, the purpose and result of the interaction of members of the world community is to coordinate efforts to establish mutually beneficial relations between the subjects of world politics.

There are many theories of foreign policy. Of the specific foreign policy theories, the theory of the American political scientist of Morgentau is the most famous. It defines an external policy primarily as a policy of force in which national interests rise over any international standards, principles and therefore the force (external, economic, financial) turns into a basic means of achieving the goals. It follows his formula: "The goals of foreign policy should be determined in the spirit of national interests and maintained by force."

To the question "Is there any interrelation of external and internal politics?" You can find at least three points of view on this problem. The first point of view identifies internal and external policies. Professor Chicago University of Morgentau believed that "Essence international Policy Identical policies internal. And the internal and foreign policy is the struggle for the strength, which is modified only by various conditions folding in the internal and international spheres ".

The second point of view is represented by the works of the Austrian sociologist L. Gumplovich, who believed that foreign policy determines the inner. Based on the fact that the struggle for existence is the main factor social Life, L. Gumplovich formulated the system of laws

international politics. Chief Law: Neighboring states are constantly fighting each other due to the border line. Out of the principal law, the secondary. One of them is: any state should prevent the increase in the power of the neighbor and take care of political equilibrium; In addition, any state seeks to profitable acquisitions, for example, to get access to the sea as a means of acquiring marine power. Finally, the Third Law: Domestic Policy should be subordinated to the goals of building military force, with which resources for the survival of the state are provided. Such, according to L. Gumpilich, the main laws of international politics.

The third point of view is represented by Marxism, which believes that foreign policy is determined by the internal and is a continuation of the public relations. The content of the latter is due to the dominant economic relations and interests of the ruling classes in society.

Relations between states in the international arena have never been equal. The role of each state was determined by its economic, technological, military, information capabilities. These opportunities were determined by the nature of the relations between states and, therefore, the type of system of international relations. The typology of international relations is practical, since it allows you to identify those global factors that influenced the development of both the world community and a particular country.

In the world, becoming increasingly important integration processeswhich are manifested in the creation of international interstate organizations (such as, for example, UN, NATO, ILO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, UNICEF, SCO, etc.), Confederates (the European Union, which enhances its position the Union of Russia and Belarus). The largest confederation of states in modern times is the European Union (EU). Objectives of this

state Confederation: 1) Education of the Close Union of Nations of Europe, promoting economic growth by creating space without internal borders, the creation of a single currency; 2) carrying out joint foreign policy and security policies; 3) Development of cooperation in the field of justice (the creation and signing of the European Constitution, etc.) and internal affairs, etc. EU bodies are: 1) the European Council; 2) European Parliament; 3) Council European Union (Council of Ministers); 4) European Commission; 5) European Court.

Today, the EU is no longer just a group of countries united in customs Union Or the general market, is incomparably more. Being an unconditional leader not only European, but also global integration, it lays the main trends in the functioning of world politics. This, in turn, leads to closer political, economic, scientific and cultural relations between participating countries. In the modern international system, the Russian Federation and the EU act as independent and at the same time actively interacting agents of the global political process, the foundation of which are the basic principles of international law and the UN Charter. The partnership of Russia and the EU was legally executed in 1994 by the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation, which entered into force on December 1, 1997. Summits "Russia - EU" are periodically held, on which current issues of international politics and economic cooperation are discussed.

The modern situation in the world associated with the crisis of the neoliberal scenario of globalization, which was based on the idea of \u200b\u200bsole dominance in the US International Policy, demanded Russian Federation Developing new principles on which its foreign policy will be built. These positions at one time were announced D.A. Medvedev. Let's call them:

The first position is international law. Russia recognizes the championship of the fundamental principles of international law, which determine the relationship between civilized nations.

The second position - the world should be multipolar. Medvedev considers unacceptable unipolarity. Russia "cannot accept such a world order, in which all decisions are made by one country, even such serious as the United States," the president said. He believes that "such a world is unstable and threatens conflicts."

The third position - Russia does not want confrontation with any country. "Russia is not going to isolate," Medvedev said. "We will develop as much as possible, our friendly relations with Europe and the United States and other countries of the world."

The fourth position, which D. Medvedev called the unconditional priority of the country's foreign policy, is the protection of the life and dignity of Russian citizens, "wherever they are." "We will also protect the interests of our entrepreneurial community abroad," said the president. "And everyone should be clear that everyone who will make aggression will receive the answer."

The fifth position is the interests of Russia in the regions friendly. "Russia, like other countries of the world, has regions in which privileged interests are located," Medvedev explained. - In these regions there are countries with which friendships are associated. " And Russia, according to the president, will "work very carefully in these regions." Medvedev clarified that it is not only about border states.

American sociologist L. Kerbo argues that it is impossible to understand any modern societywithout finding out its place in the global system on which economic growth and urbanization and demography are affected.

The world system can be considered as a combination of relations between states, similar to the relationship between groups in society. E. Giddens Defines the world system as a social system

global scales connecting all societies into a single world social order.

One of the theories of the world system was developed by I. Wallerstein. The global system is based on economic relations. In the modern world, all states are interconnected. But the economic roles of each state are different and in specialization, and according to the degree of influence. In a sense, the world is an international system of stratification "from the class position" of each state by the degree of wealth and strength. The world struggle is similar to class: some want to keep positions, others - change.

In this regard, the following types of states with characteristic features can be distinguished:

Center: economically developed, with broad specialization. Complex professional structure with qualified workforce. Affect others, and they themselves are independent.

Peripherals: focus on the extraction and export of raw materials. International Corporations use an unqualified working work. Weathequent state institutions that are not able to control the inner and external position. Support for the army, a secret police to maintain social order.

Semipperiferies: States develop industry widely, but significantly lagging behind the center. For other indicators, they also occupy an intermediate position.

The states of the Center, according to Western researchers, have the following advantages: wide access to raw materials; cheap labor; big income from direct investment; market for export; Qualified labor force through migration to the center.

If we talk about the connections of these three types of states, then the center has more connections compared to other states; Peripherals are connected

only with the center; Semipperiferies are associated with the center and other semi-reader countries, but not with peripherals.

According to S. Kumon, the XXI century will be held under the sign of the information revolution. Possible conflicts will arise about communications control. For the world system, the following trends will be characterized: at the same time, a global system will increase the global system that requires transportation, communication, trade, etc.; The development of the general global economy will lead to the weakening of market mechanisms; will increase role common system Knowledge and culture.

Peskov V.Yu., Deheev V.V. The main trends of modern international relations. The article discusses the problem of the vectors of the development of the global political process.

Keywords: international relations, world politics, foreign policy. Peskov v.u., Degoev M.M. The Main Trends of Modern International Relations. The Problem of Vectors of World Politics.

Keywords: International Relations, World Politics, Foreign Policy.