Types of international systems PDF

Preview

Summary

Different approaches to the systemic study of international relations determine the diversity of different typologies of international systems...

Description

Types of international systems

Different approaches to the systemic study of international relations determine the diversity of different typologies of international systems. Depending on the spatial-geographical characteristics, for example, a planetary international system and its regional subsystems-components are distinguished, the elements of which, in turn, are subregional subsystems. Despite the relative integrity of the planetary international system, certain gaps are inevitable in it, due to the fact that a number of international interactions do not fit into it, it has its autonomy. The authors of the book “The System, Structure, and Process of Development of Modern International Relations” consider regional (as well as group and bilateral) aspects of state interactions as structural levels of an interstate system. Compared with the above typology, this approach looks more logical, since, denoting the place of such a system in the general system of international relations, it allows not to reduce the latter to an interstate system. However, in any case, the main drawback of the regional approach remains the lack of sufficiently clear criteria for identifying a particular region as an object of study, which may have negative consequences for a general understanding of the international political processes taking place in them. The types of international (interstate) relations are often considered as a relatively independent functional system in the literature: economic, political, military-strategic, etc. system. Depending on the objectives of the study, its object can be such types of international systems as stable and unstable, conflict and cooperative, open and closed, etc. At the same time, the diversity of the typology of international systems should not be misleading. Virtually any of them is markedly marked by the theory of political realism: the basis of their selection, whatever external criteria they may be guided by, is usually the determination of the number of great powers or superpowers, the distribution of power, interstate conflicts, etc. concepts from the dictionary of the traditional trend in the science of international relations. It was political realism that became the basis of such well-known concepts as bipolar, multipolar, equilibrium and imperial international systems. In the

bipolar system, the two most powerful states dominate. If other powers reach comparable powers, the system transforms into a multipolar one. In the equilibrium system, or the system of the balance of power, several large states retain approximately the same influence on the course of events, mutually curbing each other’s “excessive” claims. Finally, in the international system of the imperial type, a single superpower dominates, far ahead of all other states with its combined power (size of territory, level of armaments, economic potential, natural resources, etc.). Based on this understanding, M. Kaplan builds his famous typology of international systems. It includes six types of systems, most of which (with the exception of two) are hypothetical, a priori. The first type is the “single veto system” in which each author has the ability to block the system using certain means of blackmail. The second type of "system of balance of power" is characterized by multipolarity. According to M. Kaplan, at least five great powers should exist within such a system. If there are fewer of them, the system will inevitably transform into a bipolar one. "Flexible bipolar system" is a third type. It co-exists the authors-states and the new type of authors unions and blocks of states, as well as universal authors (international organizations The fourth type is represented by a “rigid bipolar system.” In a rigid bipolar system, non-aligned and neutral states that existed in a soft bipolar system disappear. "Universal system" as the next type actually corresponds to the federation. It expresses the predominant role of the universal author. Such a system assumes a considerable degree of political homogeneity of the international environment and is based on the solidarity of national authors and the universal author. Finally, another type of international system is the “Hierarchical system”, which is essentially a world state. National states lose their significance in it, becoming simple territorial units, and any centrifugal tendencies on their part are immediately stopped. As already mentioned, the concept of M. Kaplan is evaluated in the special literature quite critically, primarily for its speculative, speculative nature,

isolation from reality, etc. At the same time, it is recognized that this was one of the first attempts at serious research specifically devoted to the problems of international systems in order to identify the laws of their functioning and change. The role of the social environment in the development of the modern stage of world civilization: The concept of "civilization" appeared in the XVIII century and was used initially to denote a certain historical stage in the development of society. However, from the second half of the 18th century, it began to be interpreted as a certain set of values enriched in the course of the development of society, as its social and moral perfection. The changes taking place in the world entail inevitable changes in the understanding of the term “civilization”, the content of which develops as the object reflected by it and the development of science evolve. In modern conditions, one of the most important characteristics of civilization in its planetary dimension becomes its entry into such a phase when the acuteness of the accumulated and continuing aggravated contradictions and problems makes it very real threat of the death of mankind or, at least, serious shock, degradation of the most important aspects of it of existence. We are talking about the continuing danger of a thermonuclear war, the sharp exacerbation of other global problems against the background of contradictory demographic changes, protracted regional conflicts, difficulties in adapting to the requirements of the microelectronic revolution. The degree of inconsistency of modern global civilization makes the provision of social progress, which is indisputable before for many sociological trends, quite doubtful. In any case, the inconsistency of identifying scientific, technical or material progress with social progress as a whole becomes more and more obvious: after all, even in economically developed countries, scientific, technical and material growth did not become an obvious reason for the growth of morality, spiritual culture or tolerance in national and social relations . This is all the more true for the world as a whole, where the developed countries are a minority, and the gap between them and the underdeveloped countries is not narrowing, but, on the contrary, is getting bigger.

It does not decrease, despite the increase in the proportion of universal values and problems that distinguish modern humanity from its previous historical generations, and the diversity of its distinctive original (national, regional, confessional) civilizations and cultures. In this regard, the question arises about the features of their interaction and the nature of the impact on international relations. In sociology, there are three approaches to the analysis of this issue. The first is based on the characteristics of civilization and culture as a kind of controlling and regulating authority that authorizes (or does not authorize) certain changes in social order related to the interaction of this community with other communities The second approach is associated with an evolutionary hypothesis, according to which the differences between civilizations and cultures are temporary and secondary. The paramount and constant is the fact of the continuous movement of society towards universal cultural values, which are becoming more rational and more perfect. Finally, the third “diffusionist” approach is based on the theory of cultural flows, unifying the provisions on identity and convergence of cultures. According to this theory, more rational cultures tend to spread to others by the latter borrowing their values and norms. The result of this essentially unidirectional movement of cultural flows is the self-regulation of the international system. Indeed, today it is already impossible not to take into account the phenomenon of the worldwide spread of such, for example, values as human rights, democracy, market society, material well-being, consumer culture, leisure with its temptations, etc. In the era of the transition to a post-industrial society, the path to fame, wealth and power lies through the possession of sources and means of disseminating information. Satellite, television, fax, e-mail make it possible to almost instantly distribute information from anywhere in the world to any other. But the dissemination of information about a particular event makes it possible not only to acquaint a huge audience with it, but also to propagandize or, on the contrary, debunk its meaning, that is, in other words, use it in your own interests. Experience shows that the result of the meeting of different civilizations and cultures is never the replacement or crowding out of one of them. A complex process of interaction always takes place, the assimilation of elements of another

culture is always accompanied by the preservation, and sometimes strengthening, of the identity of the importer culture. The objective cultural limits of the universalization of the Western model of civilization highlight the futility of both attempts at its thoughtless copying and neglect of national traditions, and the desire to preserve originality on the path of self-isolation and denial of the gains of world civilization. Thus, the diverse processes associated with the inherent dichotomy of unity and pluralism of civilizations and cultures in the modern world constitute the social (“intrasocietal”) environment, which has a significant and growing influence on the evolution and character of international relations. Of no less importance is the extra-social, or “extrasocietal” environment, which imposes its limitations and constraints on the international system. Studies of this aspect of the environment of international relations most often correlate with such a concept as “geopolitics”....