Current state of the theory of international relations, System and environment of international relations - Sociology of International Relations

Current state of the theory of international relations

The paradigms that developed in 1980 in the theory of international relations sought to use traditional ideas about the human world and did not set out to understand the causes of change, rejected the positivist methodology for solving problems, and developed retrospective interpreterivism as the main research method for obtaining explanatory knowledge. E. Carr, sharing the Hobbesian judgments of the XVIII century. about the nature of man and the state, sneered at the Wilsonian faith "in the mind of the past century". But to explain the reality of the 20th century, the behavior of the states of the 5th century was used. BC. However, in the conditions of rapid development of information technologies, the method of historical analogies turned out to be inapplicable, and many postulates of the theory of international relations, and above all a rigid separation of internal and external spaces, were rejected. In the unfolding unprecedented complexity of the architecture of human connections, it became increasingly noticeable that social forecasts can not be obtained by the method of intellectual immersion in the history of interstate wars. At the same time, world-wide research paved the way for understanding that the national interest, and therefore the rationality of strategies for achieving it, is set by social rather than intellectual parameters.

System and environment of international relations

The search for a new approach to the phenomenon of international relations marked the work of the British scientist Hedley Bull, published in 1969, "International Relations: The Case of Classical Approach"; ("The theory of international relations: an example of a classical approach"). The classification of the periods of development of the theory of international relations presented in his analysis calls for abandoning both classical theories and the postclassical "scientific approach" Morton Kaplan, in the bosom of which was formulated the thesis of the system of international relations . Criticizing the practice of teaching international politics at US universities, H. Bull draws a line between periods of domination of the Hobbesian-Machiavellian notions of international relations and the so-called scientific approach framed by the logic-mathematical theory of international systems (M. Kaplan), the theory of games and bargaining O. Morgenstern and T. Schelling), the "world studies", the theory of social communications (K. Deutsch), the theory of macro solutions (J. Modelick), and others. In seven bull's arguments against the American school "sistem second approach & quot; the idea of ​​ world politics as environment, in which the & quot; world diplomatic structure & quot ;, & quot; international society & quot; , "world society", consisting "ultimately of individual human beings". This remark has methodologically decisive importance, since it not only conceptually structures a new problem field, but also qualitatively differentiates the concepts of "world politics" and "international relations".

The main drawback of the & quot; classic & quot; ideas about international interaction, H. Bull sees in the excessiveness of the natural approach to the behavior of states, allowing some of them to impose their will on "the basis of either military technology or the distribution of benefits." "Scientific approach", in the opinion of this researcher, falls into the extreme of modeling and system, which have found successful application in the economy. And thereby reveals the inability to "deal with the essence of the object" international relations and world politics, replacing it with the "technique of building models" and systems. H. Bull does not offer a methodological delimitation of the subject fields of international relations and world politics, all his arguments against the school of the "scientific approach" is aimed at justifying a decisive rejection of the systemic vision. He draws attention to the fact that the study of world politics is first and foremost a "long research tradition," which seeks to streamline the behavior of existing actors.

In his concept, world politics appears as human activity, which "supports the elementary and primary goals of the society of states, or of the international society". To such purposes, H. Bull attributes security, predictability and protection of property. In his later book, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics & quot; (Anarchist Society: Study of Order in World Politics, 1977), he distinguishes between two types of order in international relations: the international system and international society. So, the international system is a set of interacting states. While international society is characterized by the interconnected availability of common values, interests and rules of conduct - unity of the political world. These two types of order are inherent in various types of balance of power. In the international system, where there are no common interests and global institutions, only a situational and, consequently, an unstable balance of power is possible. At the same time, the international society is characterized by a consciously constructed balance of forces.

Evolution of the subject of the theory of international relations:

The ideas of H. Bull were supported by American constructivism, "within the framework of which it is believed that the person in his perception and thought processes not so much reflects the surrounding world, how much he creates actively, constructs it." Considering knowledge as a culturally conditioned human activity, constructivists believe that international relations as a discipline that has arisen in the West keep in its focus exclusively Western civilization. In this case, the rest of the world ns falls into their subject field, and therefore what is commonly called the "system" is only a fragment of international relations immersed in the global international environment.

But the greatest doubt about the self-sufficiency of the classical theories of international relations has caused their prognostic limitations. In ten new trends, with which the American futurist Joey Neisbit argued the assumption of radical changes in social relations in the next 30 years (Megatrends, 1982), in essence, formulated an innovative science-research goal - to explore the leading forces of transformation and change of ideas in international relations./p>

Globalistics, futurology, the ecological idea, constructivism and synergism that accumulated the ideas of civilizationalism, began to develop an understanding of the world as a socially created reality & quot; and, contrasting it with power and financial "objectivism" realists and liberals, contributed to a substantial renewal of knowledge about international relations.

One of the notable attempts to revise traditional representations is the collective work of French authors "New International Relations" (1998). The main conclusion to which the researchers came is that a system that has survived for almost a century competing in the struggle to realize its national interests of states has outlived itself. At the same time, the modern American model of international relations, interpreted in terms of dynamic systems theory (Steven Mann), continues to develop the main theses of the realistic paradigm.

Thus, the term & quot; world politics & quot; plays the role of an academic watershed between canonical state-centered international relations and the international environment with its actor's diversity. Its practical result was the expansion of the number of participants in international interaction at the expense of international organizations , transnational corporations, non-governmental associations, various firms and associations, individual individuals involved in various international processes. At the same time, their most visible participants are the states.

By the beginning of the XXI century. follow the & quot; merge & quot; internal and external processes culminated in the recognition that "the characteristics of the international environment have become and continue to become more important than the behavioral characteristics of individual, even the strongest, actors."

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.