System of international relations. History of international relations and foreign policy The emergence and development of the theory

Yalta-Potsdam system international relations, which arose after the Second World War, was part of the Westphalian model of peace, based on the primacy of the sovereignty of the nation state. This system was enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which established the principle of the inviolability of state borders established in Europe.

Exceptional positive feature The Yalta-Potsdam order was characterized by a high degree of controllability of international processes.

The system was built on the coordination of the opinions of two superpowers, which were simultaneously the leaders of the largest military-political blocs: NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). Bloc discipline guaranteed the execution of decisions made by the leaders by the remaining members of these organizations. Exceptions were extremely rare. For example, for the ATS, such an exception was Romania’s refusal in 1968 to support the entry of bloc troops into Czechoslovakia.

In addition, the USSR and the USA had their own spheres of influence in the “third world”, which included the so-called developing countries. Solution of economic and social problems in most of these countries, and often the strength of the power positions of specific political forces and figures, to one degree or another (in other cases - absolutely) depended on outside help and support. The superpowers used this circumstance to their advantage, directly or indirectly determining the foreign policy behavior of the Third World countries oriented toward them.

The state of confrontation in which the USA and the USSR, NATO and the Department of Internal Affairs were constantly located led to the fact that the parties systematically took steps hostile to each other, but at the same time they made sure that clashes and peripheral conflicts did not create a threat Great War. Both sides adhered to the concept of nuclear deterrence and strategic stability based on the “balance of fear.”

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

The factor that did not allow this system to acquire long-term positive stability was ideological confrontation. The geopolitical rivalry between the USSR and the USA was only an external expression of the confrontation between different systems of social and ethical values. On the one hand, the ideals of equality, social justice, collectivism, priority material assets; on the other - freedom, competition, individualism, material consumption.

Ideological polarization determined the irreconcilability of the parties and made it impossible for them to abandon the strategic goal of absolute victory over the bearers of antagonistic ideology, over the opposing socio-political system.

The outcome of this global confrontation is known. Without going into details, we note that it was not without alternative. The so-called human factor played a major role in the defeat and collapse of the USSR. Authoritative political scientists S.V. Kortunov and A.I. Utkin, having analyzed the reasons for what happened, independently came to the conclusion that the transition of the USSR to an open society and the rule of law could have been carried out without the collapse of the country, if not for a number of gross miscalculations , allowed by the ruling elite of the late Soviet Union.

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

The disappearance from the political map of the USSR, one of the two pillars 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 its formation stage. The procrastination is explained by the fact that controllability of world processes was lost: countries that were previously in the sphere of Soviet influence found themselves in an uncontrolled state for some time; countries in the US sphere of influence, in the absence of a common enemy, began to act more independently; “fragmentation of the world” has developed, expressed in the intensification of separatist movements, ethnic and religious conflicts; The importance of force has grown in international relations.

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 controllability of world processes has been restored. And most likely, in the foreseeable future, “the processes of world development will remain predominantly spontaneous in their nature and course.”

Today, the formation of a new system of international relations is influenced by many factors. We will indicate only the most important ones:

Firstly, globalization. It is expressed in the internationalization of the economy, the expansion of flows of information, capital, and people themselves around the world with increasingly porous borders. As a result of globalization, the world is becoming more integral and interdependent. Any more or less noticeable shifts in one part of the world have an echo in other parts of it. However, globalization is a contradictory process, which also has Negative consequences, stimulating states to take isolationist measures;

secondly, the growth of global problems, the solution of which requires the united efforts of the world community. In particular, today everything higher value for humanity there are problems associated with climate anomalies on the planet;

thirdly, the rise and increasing role in international life of new world-class powers, primarily China, India and the so-called regional powers such as Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, South Africa and some others. The new system of international relations and its parameters can no longer depend only on the Atlantic powers. This, in particular, affects the time frame for the formation of a new system of international relations;

fourthly, the deepening of social inequality in the world community, the strengthening of the division of global society into a world of wealth and stability (“golden billion”) and a world of poverty, instability, and conflicts. Between these world poles, or, as they say, “North” and “South,” confrontation is growing. This fuels radical movements and is one of the sources of international terrorism. The “South” wants justice to be restored, and for the sake of it, the disadvantaged masses can support any al-Qaeda, any tyrant.

In general, there are two opposing trends in global development: one is towards the integration and universalization of the world, the growth international cooperation and the second - to the disintegration and disintegration of the world into several opposing regional political or even military-political associations based on common economic interests, defending the right of their peoples to development and prosperity.

All this makes us take seriously the forecast of English researcher Ken Bus: “ New Age, ... may be more like the motley and restless Middle Ages than the static twentieth century, but will take into account the lessons learned from both.”

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

Historically, international relations took shape and developed as, first of all, interstate relations; the emergence of the phenomenon of international relations is associated with the emergence of the institution of the state, and the change in their nature at different stages historical development was largely determined by the evolution of the state.

Systematic approach to the study of international relations

For modern science characteristic of the study of international relations as whole system functioning according to its own laws. The advantages of this approach are that it allows a deeper analysis of the motivation for the behavior of countries or military-political blocs, identifying the relative weight of certain factors that determine their actions, exploring the mechanism that determines the dynamics of the world community as a whole, and ideally predicting its development. Systematicity in relation to international relations means the nature of long-term relationships between states or groups of states, which are characterized by stability and interdependence; these relationships are based on the desire to achieve a certain, conscious set of sustainable goals; they, to one degree or another, contain elements of legal regulation of basic aspects international activities.

Formation of the system of international relations

Systematicity in international relations is a historical concept. It is formed in the early modern period, when international relations acquired qualitatively new features that determined their subsequent development. The conventional date for the formation of the system of international relations is considered to be 1648 - the time of the end of the Thirty Years' War and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia. The most important condition for the emergence of systematicity was the formation of national states with relatively stable interests and goals. The economic foundation of this process was the development of bourgeois relations; the ideological and political side was greatly influenced by the Reformation, which undermined Catholic unity European world and contributed to the political and cultural isolation of states. Within states, there was a process of strengthening centralizing tendencies and overcoming feudal separatism, which resulted in the opportunity to develop and implement a consistent foreign policy. In parallel, based on the development of commodity-money relations and the growth of world trade, a system of world economic relations was born, into which increasingly vast territories were gradually drawn in and within which a certain hierarchy was built.

Periodization of the history of international relations in modern and contemporary times

In the course of the development of the system of international relations into a new and modern times a number of major stages are identified that differed significantly from each other in their internal content, structure, the nature of the relationships between the constituent elements, and the dominant set of values. Based on these criteria, it is customary to distinguish the Westphalian (1648-1789), Vienna (1815-1914), Versailles-Washington (1919-1939), Yalta-Potsdam (bipolar) (1945-1991) and post-bipolar models of international relations. Each of the successively replacing each other models passed through several phases in its development: from the phase of formation to the phase of decay. Up to and including the Second World War, the starting point of the next cycle in the evolution of the system of international relations were major military conflicts, during which a radical regrouping of forces was carried out, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries changed, and a serious redrawing of borders took place. Thus, old pre-war contradictions were eliminated and the road was cleared for a new round of development.

Characteristic features of international relations and foreign policy of states in modern times

From the point of view of the history of international relations, European states have been of decisive importance in modern times. In the “European era”, which lasted until the twentieth century, it was they who acted as the main dynamic force, increasingly influencing the appearance of the rest of the world through the expansion and spread of European civilization - a process that began with the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries at the end of the 15th century. V.

In the XVI - XVII centuries. The ideas about the medieval world order, when Europe was perceived as a kind of Christian unity under the spiritual leadership of the pope and with a universalist tendency towards political unification, which was to be headed by the Holy Roman Emperor, have finally become a thing of the past. The Reformation and religious wars put an end to spiritual unity, and the formation of a new statehood and the collapse of the empire of Charles V as the last universalist attempt - to political unity. From now on, Europe became not so much unity as plurality. During the Thirty Years' War 1618 - 1648. The secularization of international relations was finally established as one of their most important characteristics in modern times. If earlier foreign policy was largely determined by religious motives, then with the beginning of modern times, the main motive for the actions of an individual state became the principle of state interests, which is understood as such a set of long-term program and target objectives of the state (military, economic, propaganda, etc.), the implementation of which would guarantee the country's preservation of sovereignty and security. Along with secularization, another important feature of international relations in modern times was the process of monopolization of foreign policy by the state, while individual feudal lords, merchant corporations, and church organizations gradually left the European political scene. Conducting foreign policy required the creation of a regular army to protect the interests of the state externally and a bureaucracy designed to more effectively manage internally. There was a separation of foreign policy departments from other government bodies, and there was a process of complication and differentiation of their structure. The main role in making foreign policy decisions was played by the monarch, in whose figure the absolutist state of the 17th - 18th centuries was personified. It is he who is perceived as the source and bearer of sovereignty.

The state also takes control of one of the most common means of conducting foreign policy in modern times - war. In the Middle Ages, the concept of war was ambiguous and vague; it could be used to refer to various kinds of internal conflicts; various feudal groups had the “right to war.” In the XVII-XVIII centuries. all rights to use armed force pass into the hands of the state, and the very concept of “war” is used almost exclusively to refer to interstate conflicts. At the same time, war was recognized as a completely normal, natural means of conducting politics. The threshold separating peace from war was extremely low; statistics testify to the constant readiness to cross it - two years of peace in the 17th century, sixteen in the 18th century. Main view wars of the 17th - 18th centuries. - this is the so-called “cabinet war”, i.e. a war between sovereigns and their armies, aimed at the acquisition of specific territories with a conscious desire to preserve population and material values. The most common type of war for absolutist dynastic Europe was the war of succession - Spanish, Austrian, Polish. On the one hand, these wars were about the prestige of individual dynasties and their representatives, about issues of rank and hierarchy; on the other hand, dynastic problems often acted as a convenient legal justification for achieving economic, political, and strategic interests. The second important type of wars were trade and colonial wars, the emergence of which was associated with the rapid development of capitalism and intense trade competition between European powers. An example of such conflicts are the Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-French wars.

The absence of external restrictions on the activities of states and constant wars required the development of norms for interstate relations. One proposed option was an international organization or federation designed to regulate disputes diplomatically and apply collective sanctions to violators of the general will. The idea of ​​“eternal peace” took a strong position in social thought and went through a certain evolution from an appeal to the reason of sovereigns through the demand for a change political system individual states to proclaim the inevitability of the onset of eternal peace in a separate future. Another common concept was the "balance of power" or "political equilibrium". In political practice, this concept became a reaction to the attempts of the Habsburgs and then the Bourbons to establish dominance in Europe. Balance was understood as a means to ensure peace and security for all participants in the system. The task of laying a legal basis for the relations of states was met by the appearance of works by G. Grotius and S. Puffendorf on the problems international law. Researchers Thomas Hobbes, Niccollo Macchiavelli, David Hume, Karl Haushofer, Robert Schumann, Francis Fukuyama and others made significant contributions to works on the history of international relations.

Features of the development of international relations in the 19th century. stemmed mainly from the fact that at that time fundamental changes were taking place in the life of Western society and the state. The so-called “double revolution” of the late 18th century, i.e. The industrial revolution that began in England and the French Revolution became the starting point for the process of modernization that took place throughout the next century, during which the traditional class-divided agrarian society was replaced by a modern mass industrial civilization. The main subject of international relations is still the state, although it was in the 19th century. Non-state participants in international relations - national and pacifist movements, various kinds of political associations - are also beginning to play a certain role. If with the process of secularization the state lost its traditional support in the form of divine sanction, then in the era of democratization that began, it gradually lost its centuries-old dynastic background. In the sphere of international relations, this was most clearly manifested in the complete disappearance of the phenomenon of wars of succession, and at the diplomatic level in the gradual diminishment of issues of primacy and rank, so characteristic of the Old Order. Having lost the old supports, the state was in dire need of new ones. As a result, the crisis of legitimation of political domination was overcome by reference to a new authority - the nation. The French Revolution put forward the idea of ​​popular sovereignty and viewed the nation as its source and bearer. However, until the middle of the 19th century. - the state and the nation acted more like antipodes. Monarchs fought against the national idea as a legacy of the French Revolution, while liberal and democratic forces demanded their participation in political life precisely on the basis of the idea of ​​the nation as a politically self-governing people. The situation changed under the influence of dramatic changes in the economy and social structure society: suffrage reforms gradually allowed wider strata to participate in political life, and the state began to draw its legitimacy from the nation. Moreover, if initially the national idea was used by political elites mainly instrumentally as a means of mobilizing support for their policies, dictated by rational interests, then gradually it turned into one of the leading forces that determined state policy.

Huge influence on the foreign policy of states and international relations in the 19th century. caused the industrial revolution. It manifested itself in the increased interdependence between economic and political power. The economy began to determine the goals of foreign policy to a much greater extent, provided new means to achieve these goals, and gave rise to new conflicts. The revolution in the field of communications led to overcoming the “centuries-old hostility of space” and became a condition for expanding the boundaries of the system, the “first globalization.” Coupled with rapid technological progress in the development of weapons of the great powers, it also gave a new quality to colonial expansion.

The 19th century has gone down in history as the most peaceful century of modern times. The architects of the Vienna System consciously sought to design mechanisms designed to prevent big war. The theory and practice of the “Concert of Europe” that emerged during that period marked a step towards international relations consciously managed on the basis of agreed norms. However, the period 1815 - 1914 was not so homogeneous, different tendencies were hidden behind the external peacefulness, peace and war went hand in hand with each other. As before, war was understood as a natural means for the state to pursue its foreign policy interests. At the same time, the processes of industrialization, democratization of society, and the development of nationalism gave it a new character. With the introduction almost everywhere in the 1860-70s. universal conscription began to blur the line between the army and society. Two circumstances followed from this - firstly, the impossibility of waging a war contrary to public opinion and, accordingly, the need for its propaganda preparation, and secondly, the tendency for the war to acquire a total character. Distinctive features total war is the use of all types and means of struggle - armed, economic, ideological; unlimited goals, up to the complete moral and physical destruction of the enemy; erasing the boundaries between the military and civilian population, state and society, public and private, mobilizing all the country's resources to fight the enemy. The war of 1914 - 1918, which led to the collapse of the Vienna system, was not only the First World War, but also the first total war.

Features of the development of international relations and foreign policy of states in modern times

World War I became a reflection of the crisis of traditional bourgeois society, its accelerator and stimulator, and at the same time a form of transition from one model of organization of the world community to another. The international legal formalization of the results of the First World War and the new balance of power that emerged after its end was Versailles-Washington model international relations. It was formed as the first global system - the United States and Japan entered the club of great powers. However, the architects of the Versailles-Washington system failed to create a stable balance based on the balance of interests of the great powers. Not only did it not eliminate traditional contradictions, but it also contributed to the emergence of new international conflicts.

Fig.1. Global Peace index map.

The main thing was the confrontation between the victorious powers and the defeated states. The conflict between the Allied powers and Germany was the most important contradiction of the interwar period, which ultimately resulted in a struggle for a new redivision of the world. The contradictions between the victorious powers themselves did not contribute to their implementation of a coordinated policy and predetermined the ineffectiveness of the first international peacekeeping organization - League of Nations. An organic flaw of the Versailles system was ignoring interests Soviet Russia. A fundamentally new one has arisen in international relations - an inter-formation, ideological-class conflict. The emergence of another group of contradictions - between small European countries - was associated with the solution of territorial and political issues, which took into account not so much their interests as the strategic considerations of the victorious powers. A purely conservative approach to solving colonial problems strained relations between the metropolitan powers and the colonies. The growing national liberation movement became one of the most important indicators of the instability and fragility of the Versailles-Washington system. Despite its instability, the Versailles-Washington model cannot be characterized only in a negative way. Along with conservative, imperialist tendencies, it contained democratic, fair principles. They were caused by fundamental changes in the post-war world: the rise of the revolutionary and national liberation movement, the widespread spread of pacifist sentiments, as well as the desire of a number of leaders of the victorious powers to give the new world order a more liberal appearance. Decisions such as the establishment of the League of Nations, the declaration of the independence and territorial integrity of China, and the limitation and reduction of armaments were based on these principles. However, they could not eliminate the destructive tendencies in the development of the system, which were especially clearly manifested in the wake of great economic crisis of 1929-1933. The coming to power in a number of states (primarily in Germany) of forces aimed at destroying the existing system became an important factor in its crisis. A theoretically possible alternative in the evolution of the Versailles-Washington system lasted until the mid-30s, after which destructive moments in the development of this model began to completely determine the overall dynamics of the functioning of the system mechanism, which caused the crisis phase to develop into a phase of collapse. The decisive event that determined the final fate of this system occurred in the fall of 1938. We are talking about Munich Agreement, after which it was no longer possible to save the system from collapse.

Fig.2. Political map Europe

The Second World War, which began on September 1, 1939, became a unique form of transition from a multipolar model of international relations to a bipolar one. The main centers of power cementing the system moved from Europe to the expanses of Eurasia (USSR) and North America(USA). Among the elements of the system, a new category of superpowers appeared, the conflict interaction of which set the vector of development of the model. The interests of the superpowers acquired global coverage, which included almost all regions globe, and this automatically sharply increased the field of conflict interaction and, accordingly, the likelihood of local conflicts arising. The ideological factor played a huge role in the development of international relations after World War II. The bipolarity of the world community was largely determined by the dominance of the postulate that there were supposedly only two alternative models of social development in the world: Soviet and American. Another important factor that influenced the functioning of the bipolar model was the creation of missile- nuclear weapons, which radically changed the entire system of foreign policy decision-making and radically revolutionized ideas about the nature of military strategy. In real post-war world for all its apparent simplicity - bipolarity - it turned out to be no less, and, perhaps, more complex than the multipolar models of previous years. The tendency towards the pluralization of international relations, their going beyond the rigid framework of bipolarity, manifested itself in the intensification of the national liberation movement, claiming an independent role in world affairs, the process of Western European integration, and the slow erosion of military-political blocs.

The model of international relations that emerged as a result of the Second World War was, from the very beginning, more structured than its predecessors. In 1945 the UN was formed - world organization for maintaining peace, which included almost all states - components of the system of international relations. As it developed, its functions expanded and multiplied, the organizational structure was improved, and new subsidiary organizations appeared. Beginning in 1949, the United States began to form a network of military-political blocs designed to create a barrier to the possible expansion of the sphere of Soviet influence. The USSR, in turn, designed structures under its control. Integration processes gave rise to a whole series of supranational structures, the leading of which was the EEC. The structuring of the “third world” was taking place, various regional organizations- political, economic, military, cultural. The legal framework of international relations has been improved.

Features of the development of international relations at the present stage

With the sharp weakening and subsequent collapse of the USSR, the bipolar model ceased to exist. Accordingly, this also meant a crisis in the management of the system, previously based on bloc confrontation. The global conflict between the USSR and the USA ceased to be its organizing axis. Specifics of the situation in the 90s. XX century was that the processes of formation of a new model occurred simultaneously with the collapse of the structures of the old one. This led to significant uncertainty about the contours of the future world order. Therefore it is not surprising a large number of various forecasts and scenarios for the future development of the system of international relations, which appeared in the literature of the 1990s. Thus, leading American political scientists K. Waltz, J. Marsheimer, K. Lane predicted a return to multipolarity - Germany, Japan, possibly China and Russia gaining the status of centers of power. Other theorists (J. Nye, Charles Krauthammer) called the main trend of strengthening US leadership. The implementation of this trend at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. gave rise to a discussion of the prospects for the establishment and stable functioning of unipolarity. It is obvious that the concept of “hegemonic stability”, popular in American literature at that time, defending the thesis of the stability of a system based on the dominance of a single superpower, was aimed at justifying US superiority in the world. Its proponents often equate US benefits with the “common good.” Therefore, it is not surprising that outside the United States the attitude towards such a concept is mostly skeptical. In the context of the dominance of power politics in international relations, hegemony is a potential threat to the state interests of all countries, with the exception of the hegemon himself. It creates a situation in which arbitrariness on the part of the only superpower on the world stage is possible. In contrast to the idea of ​​a “unipolar world,” a thesis is put forward about the need to develop and strengthen a multipolar structure.

In reality, multidirectional forces are at work in modern international relations: both those that contribute to consolidating the leading role of the United States, and those acting in the opposite direction. The first trend is supported by the asymmetry in power in favor of the United States, the created mechanisms and structures that support its leadership, primarily in the global economic system. Despite some disagreements, leading countries remain allies of the United States Western Europe, Japan. At the same time, the principle of hegemony is contradicted by the factor of increasing heterogeneity of the world, in which states with different socio-economic, political, cultural and value systems coexist. At present, the project of disseminating the Western model of liberal democracy, way of life, and system of values ​​as general norms accepted by all, or at least most, states of the world also seems utopian. Its implementation is only one of the trends in modern international relations. It is opposed by equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification along ethnic, national, and religious lines, which is expressed in the growing influence of nationalist, traditionalist and fundamentalist ideas in the world. Islamic fundamentalism is being put forward as the most influential systemic alternative to American capitalism and liberal democracy. Besides sovereign states Transnational and supranational associations are increasingly acting as independent players on the world stage. A consequence of the process of transnationalization of production and the emergence of a global capital market is a slight weakening of the regulatory role of the state in general and the United States in particular. Finally, although a dominant power receives undoubted benefits from its position on the world stage, the global nature of its interests requires significant costs. Moreover, the increasing complexity of the modern system of international relations makes it practically impossible to manage it from a single center. Along with the superpower, there are states in the world with global and regional interests, without whose cooperation it is impossible to solve the most pressing problems of modern international relations, which include, first of all, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. The modern international system is characterized by a colossal increase in the number of interactions between its various participants at different levels. As a result of this, it becomes not only more interdependent, but also mutually vulnerable, which requires the creation of new ramified institutions and mechanisms for maintaining stability.

Recommended reading

Introduction to the theory of international relations: Tutorial/ Rep. editor A.S. Manykin. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2001 (Proceedings of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University: Issue 17. Series III. Instrumenta studiorum).

Conflicts and crises in international relations: problems of theory and history: Materials of the Association for the Study of the United States / Problems of American Studies Vol. 11 Rep. editor. A.S.Manykin. - M.: MAKS Press, 2001

Fundamentals of the general theory of international relations: Textbook / Ed. A.S. Manykina. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2009. - 592 p.

Models of regional integration: past and present. Edited by A.S. Manykina. Tutorial. M., Ol Bee Print. 2010. 628 p.

Gorokhov V.N. History of international relations. 1918-1939: Course of lectures. - M.: Publishing house Moscow. University, 2004. - 288 p.

Medyakov A. S. History of international relations in modern times. - M. Education, 2007. - 463 p.

Bartenev V.I. "Libyan problem" in international relations. 1969-2008. M., URSS, 2009. - 448 p.

Pilko A.V. "Crisis of confidence" in NATO: an alliance on the verge of change (1956-1966). - M.: Publishing house Moscow. University, 2007. - 240 p.

Romanova E.V. The Path to War: The Development of the Anglo-German Conflict, 1898-1914. - M.: MAKS Press, 2008. -328 p.

Plan:

1. Evolution of the system of international relations.

2. The Middle East and the religious factor in the modern system of international relations.

3. Integration and international organizations in the system of international relations.

4. Legislative acts of global and regional significance.

5. Features of the modern international system and Russia’s place in it.

After the Second World War, as we already know, a two-pole system international relations. In it, the USA and the USSR acted as two superpowers. Between them there is ideological, political, military, economic confrontation and rivalry, which are called "Cold War". However, the situation began to change with perestroika in the USSR.

Perestroika in the USSR had a significant impact on international relations. The head of the USSR M. Gorbachev put forward the idea of ​​new political thinking. He stated that the main problem is the survival of humanity. According to Gorbachev, all foreign policy activities should be subordinated to its decision. The decisive role was played by high-level negotiations between M. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, and then G. Bush Sr. They led to the signing of bilateral negotiations on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in 1987 year and on the limitation and reduction of offensive weapons (START-1) in 1991. The withdrawal of a contingent of Soviet troops from Afghanistan to Afghanistan also contributed to the normalization of international relations. 1989 year.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued its pro-Western, pro-American policy. A number of agreements on further disarmament and cooperation were concluded. Such treaties include START-2, concluded in 1993 year. The consequences of such a policy are to reduce the threat of a new war using weapons of mass destruction.

The collapse of the USSR in 1991, which was a natural result of perestroika, the “velvet” revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989 – 1991, and the subsequent collapse of the Warsaw Department, CMEA, and the socialist camp contributed to the transformation of the international system. From double-pole it turned into single-pole, where the United States played the main role. The Americans, finding themselves the only superpower, set a course to build up their weapons, including the latest ones, and also promoted the expansion of NATO to the East. IN 2001 The United States withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty. IN 2007 In 2009, the Americans announced the deployment of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, next to the Russian Federation. The United States has taken a course towards supporting the regime of M. Saakashvili in Georgia. IN 2008 year, Georgia, with military-political and economic support from the United States, attacked South Ossetia, attacking Russian peacekeepers, which grossly contradicts international law. The aggression was repelled by Russian troops and local militias.

Serious changes occurred in Europe at the turn of the 80-90s of the twentieth century . Germany was reunified in 1990. IN In 1991, CMEA and OVD were liquidated. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO. In 2004 - Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. In 2009 – Albania, Croatia. The expansion of NATO to the East, which cannot but worry the Russian Federation, has taken place.

With the threat of global war decreasing, local conflicts in Europe and the post-Soviet space have intensified. There were armed conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in Transnistria, Tajikistan, Georgia, and the North Caucasus. Political conflicts in Yugoslavia turned out to be especially bloody. They are characterized by massive ethnic cleansing and refugee flows. In 1999, NATO led by the United States, without UN sanction, committed open aggression against Yugoslavia, starting the bombing of that country. In 2011 NATO countries attacked Libya, overthrowing the political regime of Muammar Gaddafi. At the same time, the head of Libya himself was physically destroyed.

Another source of tension continues to exist in the Middle East. The region is troubled Iraq. The relationship between India and Pakistan. In Africa, interstate and civil wars accompanied by mass extermination of the population. Tensions remain in a number of regions of the former USSR. Besides South Ossetia And Abkhazia, there are other unrecognized republics here - Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh.

September 11, 2001 in the USA- tragedy. Americans became the target of aggression. IN 2001 The United States has declared its main goal to be the fight against terrorism. The Americans invaded Iraq and Afghanistan under this pretext, where, with the help of local forces, they overthrew the Taliban regime. This has led to a manifold increase in the drug trade. In Afghanistan itself fighting between the Taliban and the occupying forces are increasingly intensifying. The role and authority of the UN has decreased. The UN was never able to resist American aggression.

However, it is clear that the United States is experiencing many problems that are eroding its geopolitical power. The economic crisis of 2008, which began in the United States, demonstrates this. Americans alone cannot solve global problems. In addition, the Americans themselves in 2013 found themselves once again on the brink of default. Many both domestic and foreign researchers talk about the problems of the American financial system. Under these conditions, alternative forces have emerged that in the future may act as new geopolitical leaders. These include the European Union, China, India. They, like the Russian Federation, oppose the unipolar international political system.

However, the transformation of the international political system from unipolar to multipolar is hampered by various factors. Among them are socio-economic problems and disagreements between EU member states. China and India, despite economic growth, still remain “countries of contrasts.” Low level life of the population, the socio-economic problems of these countries do not allow them to become full-fledged competitors of the United States. This also applies to modern Russia.

Let's summarize. At the turn of the century, there was an evolution of the system of international relations from bipolar to unipolar, and then to multipolar.

Nowadays, the development of the system of modern international relations is greatly influenced by religious factor, especially Islam. According to religious scholars, Islam is the most powerful and viable religion of our time. No religion has so many believers who were devoted to their religion. Islam is felt by them as the basis of life. The simplicity and consistency of the foundations of this religion, its ability to give believers a holistic and understandable picture of the world, society and the structure of the universe - all this makes Islam attractive to many.

However, the ever-growing threat from Islam forces everyone large quantity people view Muslims with distrust. At the turn of the 60s-7s of the twentieth century, an increase in the socio-political activity of Islamists began in the wake of disappointment in the ideas of secular nationalism. Islam went on the offensive. Captured by Islamization education system, political life, culture, life. At the turn of the century, certain movements of Islam became closely associated with terrorism..

Modern terrorism has become a danger to the whole world. Since the 1980s, Islamic paramilitary terrorist groups have become increasingly active in the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah. Their interference in political processes in the Middle East is enormous. The Arab Spring is clearly taking place under Islamic banners.

The challenge of Islam is realized in the form of processes that researchers classify in different ways. Some view the Islamic challenge as a consequence of civilizational confrontation (S. Huntington’s concept). Others focus on economic interests that stand behind the activation of the Islamic factor. For example, countries in the Middle East are rich in oil. The starting point of the third approach is analysis geopolitical factors. It is assumed that there is certain political forces that use such movements and organizations for their own purposes. The fourth say that Activation of the religious factor is a form of national liberation struggle.

Countries of the Islamic world long time existed on the margins of rapidly developing capitalism. Everything changed in the second half of the twentieth century, after decolonization, which was marked by the return of independence to the oppressed countries. In this situation, when the entire world of Islam has turned into a mosaic different countries and states, a rapid revival of Islam began. But in many Muslim countries no stability. Therefore, it is very difficult to overcome economic and technological backwardness. Situation is aggravated by the onset of globalization. Under these conditions, Islam becomes a weapon in the hands of fanatics.

However, Islam is not the only religion that influences the modern system of international relations. Christianity also acts as a geopolitical factor. Let's remember the impact ethics of Protestantism on the development of capitalist relations. This relationship was well revealed by the German philosopher, sociologist, and political scientist M. Weber. Catholic Church, for example, influenced the political processes that took place in Poland during the years of the “Velvet Revolution”. She managed to maintain moral authority in an authoritarian political regime and influence the change of political power to take civilizational forms, so that different political forces came to a consensus.

Thus, the role of the religious factor in modern international relations at the turn of the century is increasing. What makes it alarming is the fact that it often takes on uncivilized forms and is associated with terrorism and political extremism.

The religious factor in the form of Islam manifested itself most clearly in the countries of the Middle East. It is in the Middle East that Islamist origins are raising their heads. Such, for example, as the Muslim Brotherhood. They set themselves the goal of Islamizing the entire region.

The Middle East is the name of the region located in Western Asia and North Africa. The main population of the region: Arabs, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis. The countries of the Middle East are: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye. In the twentieth century, the Middle East became an arena of political conflicts, a center of increased attention from political scientists, historians, and philosophers.

Events in the Middle East, known as the “Arab Spring,” played a significant role in this. The “Arab Spring” is a revolutionary wave of protests that began in the Arab world on December 18, 2010 and continues to this day. The Arab Spring affected countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and Iraq.

The Arab Spring began with protests in Tunisia on December 18, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest corruption and police brutality. To date, the “Arab Spring” has led to the overthrow of several heads of state in a revolutionary form: Tunisian President Zine El-Abidine Ali, Mubarak and then Mirsi in Egypt, and Libyan leader Muammar Kadafi. He was overthrown on August 23, 2011, and then killed.

Still ongoing in the Middle East Arab-Israeli conflict, which has its own backstory . In November 1947, the UN decided to create two states in Palestine: Arab and Jewish.. Jerusalem stood out as an independent unit. In May 1948 The State of Israel was proclaimed and the first Arab-Israeli war began. Troops from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iraq led troops into Palestine. War is over in 1949 year. Israel occupied more than half of the territory intended for the Arab state, and also western part Jerusalem. So, the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-1949. ended in defeat for the Arabs.

In June 1967 Israel launched military action against Arab states in response to the activities PLO – Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat, created in 1964 year with the aim of fighting for the formation of an Arab state in Palestine and the liquidation of Israel. Israeli troops advanced inland against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. However, protests from the world community against the aggression, which the USSR joined, forced Israel to stop the offensive. During the six-day war, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, eastern part Jerusalem.

In 1973 a new Arab-Israeli war began. Egypt managed to liberate part of the Sinai Peninsula. In 1970 and 1982 – 1991 gg. Israeli troops invaded Lebanon to fight Palestinian refugees. Part of Lebanese territory came under Israeli control. It was not until the beginning of the twenty-first century that Israeli troops left Lebanon.

All attempts by the UN and leading world powers to end the conflict were unsuccessful. Since 1987 began in the occupied territories of Palestine intifada - Palestinian uprising. In the mid-90s. An agreement was reached between the leaders of Israel and the PLO to create autonomy in Palestine. But the Palestinian Authority was completely dependent on Israel, and Jewish settlements remained on its territory. The situation worsened at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first century, when second intifada. Israel was forced to withdraw its troops and displaced people from the Gaza Strip. Mutual shelling of the territory of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and terrorist attacks continued. Ya. Arafat died on November 11, 20004. In the summer of 2006, there was a war between Israel and the Hezbollah organization in Lebanon. At the end of 2008 - beginning of 2009, Israeli troops attacked the Gaza Strip. The armed action led to the death of hundreds of Palestinians.

In conclusion, we note that the Arab-Israeli conflict is far from over: in addition to the mutual territorial claims of the conflicting parties, there is a religious and ideological confrontation between them. If the Arabs view the Koran as a world constitution, then the Jews view the triumph of the Torah. If Muslims dream of recreating the Arab caliphate, then Jews dream of creating a “Great Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates.

The modern system of international relations is characterized not only by globalization, but also by integration. Integration, in particular, manifested itself in the following: 1) was created in 1991 CIS– a union of independent states, uniting the former republics of the USSR; 2) PAH– League of Arab States. This is an international organization that unites not only Arab states, but also those that are friendly to Arab countries. Created in 1945. The highest body is the League Council. The Arab League includes 19 Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Among them: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Somalia. Headquarters - Cairo. The Arab League deals with political integration. In Cairo, on December 27, 2005, the first session of the Arab Parliament, whose headquarters is located in Damascus, took place. In 2008, the Arab Charter of Human Rights came into force, which differs significantly from European legislation. The charter is based on Islam. She equates Zionism with racism and allows abuse of minors death penalty. The Arab League is headed by the Secretary General. From 2001 to 2011 he was Aler Musa, and since 2011 - Nabil al-Arabi; 3) EU- European Union. The EU was legally established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The single currency is the euro. The most important EU institutions are: the Council of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the European Parliament. The existence of such institutions suggests that the EU strives not only for political, but also for economic integration.

The integration and institutionalization of international relations is manifested in the existence of international organizations. Let's give brief description international organizations and areas of their activity.

Name	date	Characteristic
UN		An international organization created to support and strengthen international peace and safety. As of 2011, it included 193 states. The United States makes the most contributions. General Secretaries: Boutros Boutros Ghali (1992 – 1997), Kofi Annan (1997 – 2007), Ban Ki-moon (2007 to date). official languages: English, French, Russian, Chinese. Russia is a member of the UN
ILO		Specialized institution UN Regulator labor relations. The Russian Federation is a member of the ILO
WTO		An international organization created for the purpose of trade liberalization. The Russian Federation has been a member of the WTO since 2012.
NATO		North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the largest in the world military-political bloc, uniting most European countries, USA, Canada.
EU		Economic and political unification European countries, aimed at regional integration.
IMF, IBRD, WB		International financial organizations, created on the basis of interstate agreements, regulate monetary and credit relations between states. IMF, IBRD are specialized agencies of the UN. In the 90s, the Russian Federation turned to these organizations for help.
WHO		A specialized UN agency dedicated to solving international health problems. WHO members are 193 states, including the Russian Federation.
UNESCO		UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The main goal is to promote peace and security through increased cooperation between states and peoples. The Russian Federation is a member of the organization.
IAEA		International organization for the development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of atomic energy.

International relations, like any other social relations, need pro-government regulation. Therefore, a whole branch of law has emerged - international law, which deals with regulating relations between countries.

Principles and norms related to human rights have been developed and adopted in both domestic law and international law. Historically, norms regulating the activities of states during armed conflicts were initially developed. In contrast to international conventions aimed at limiting the brutality of war and ensuring humanitarian standards for prisoners of war, the wounded, combatants, and civilians, principles and norms regarding human rights in peace began to emerge only at the beginning of the twentieth century. International human rights agreements are divided into the following groups. The first group includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Human Rights Covenants. The second group includes international conventions on the protection of human rights during armed conflicts. These include the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, and their Additional Protocols adopted in 1977. The third group consists of documents that regulate liability for violations of human rights in Peaceful time and during armed conflicts: verdicts of the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg, Tokyo, International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1973, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.

The development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took place in a bitter diplomatic struggle between Western countries and the USSR. When developing the Declaration, Western countries relied on the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 and the US Constitution of 1787. The USSR insisted that the USSR Constitution of 1936 be taken as the basis for the development of the Universal Declaration. The Soviet delegation also advocated the inclusion of social and economic rights , as well as articles of the Soviet Constitution, which proclaimed the right of every nation to self-determination. Fundamental differences also emerged in ideological approaches. However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted after a long discussion General Assembly UN in the form of its resolution on December 10, 1948. Therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, containing a list of its various freedoms, is advisory in nature. However, this fact does not diminish the importance of the adoption of the Declaration: 90 national constitutions, including the Constitution of the Russian Federation, contain a list of fundamental rights that reproduce the provisions of this international legal source. If we compare the contents of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which talks about the numerous rights of man, the individual, the citizen, their legal statuses, one might think that the Russian constitution was written as a carbon copy.

Date of adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 12/10/1948 celebrated as International Human Rights Day. Declaration translated from Latin means statement. A declaration is an official declaration by the state of the basic principles that are advisory in nature. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all people are free and equal in dignity and rights. It is proclaimed that every person has the right to life, liberty, and personal integrity. A provision on the presumption of innocence is also included: a person accused of committing a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Each person is also guaranteed freedom of thought, receipt and dissemination of information.

By adopting the Universal Declaration, the General Assembly mandated the Commission on Human Rights, through the Economic and Social Council, to develop a single package covering a broad range of fundamental rights and freedoms. In 1951, the UN General Assembly, having considered 18 articles of the Covenant containing civil and political rights at its session, adopted a resolution in which it decided to include economic, social and cultural rights in the Covenant. However, the United States and its allies insisted that the Covenant be limited to civil and political rights. This led to the fact that in 1952 the General Assembly revised its decision and adopted a resolution on the preparation of two Covenants instead of one Covenant: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The decision of the General Assembly was contained in its resolution of February 5, 1952, No. 543. After this decision, the UN discussed certain provisions of the Covenants for many years. On December 16, 1966, they were approved. Thus, the International Covenants on Human Rights took over 20 years to prepare. As with the development of the Universal Declaration, during their discussion the ideological differences between the USA and the USSR were clearly revealed, since these countries belonged to different socio-economic systems. In 1973, the USSR ratified both Covenants. But in practice he did not fulfill them. In 1991, the USSR became a party to the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, has undertaken to comply with all international treaties of the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 speaks of the natural nature of human rights, of their inalienability from birth. From comparative analysis content legal sources It follows that the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines almost the entire range of human rights and freedoms contained not only in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also in both Covenants.

Let's move on to the characteristics International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Pact translated from Latin means agreement, agreement. Pact is one of the names international treaty of great political importance. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted in 1966. We note that economic, social and cultural rights relatively recently began to be proclaimed and enshrined in legislation various countries peace and international documents. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a qualitatively new stage in the international legal regulation of these rights begins. Their specific list in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights begins from the proclamation of the human right to work (Article 6), the right of everyone to favorable and fair working conditions (Article 7), the right to social security and social insurance (Article 9), the right of everyone to decent level life (v. 11). According to the Covenant, a person has the right to decent remuneration for work, fair wages, the right to strike in accordance with local legislation. The document also notes that promotion should be regulated not by family ties, but by length of service and qualifications. The family must be under the protection and protection of the state.

It must be recalled that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1996. The Covenant contains a wide range of rights and freedoms that must be granted by each state party to all persons without any restrictions. Note that there is also a meaningful relationship between the two Covenants: a number of provisions contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Freedoms relate to issues that are regulated in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This is Art. 22, which provides for the right of every person to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions, Art. 23-24 about family, marriage, children, proclaiming the equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses. The third part of the Covenant (Articles 6 – 27) contains a specific list of civil and political rights that must be ensured in each state: the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery, the slave trade and forced labor, the right of everyone to freedom and personal integrity (Articles 6 – 9), the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 18), the right to non-interference in personal and family life . The Pact states that all persons must be equal before the court. The significance of the Covenant is that it established the principle of modern international law, according to which fundamental rights and freedoms must be respected in any situation, including periods of military conflict.

The international community has accepted and optional protocols. Under Optional protocols in international law are understood as a type of multilateral international treaty signed in the form of an independent document, usually in connection with the conclusion of the main treaty in the form of an annex to it. The reason for adopting the optional protocol was as follows. During the development of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the issue of a procedure for dealing with individual complaints was discussed for a long time. Austria proposed the creation of a special international human rights court within the framework of the Covenant. Cases could be initiated not only by states as subjects of international law, but also by individuals, groups of persons, and non-governmental organizations. The USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe - satellites of the USSR, opposed it. As a result of discussion of the issues, it was decided not to include provisions in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on consideration of complaints from individuals, leaving them for a special treaty - the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly along with the Covenant on December 16, 1966. In 1989, the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted, aimed at abolishing the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol became an integral part of the International Bill of Human Rights.

Before talking about the place and role of Russia in the modern system of international relations, we note and reveal a number of features of this system.

Modern international relations have a number of features that I would like to emphasize. First, international relations have become more complex. Reasons: a) increase in the number of states as a result of decolonization, the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and the Czech Republic. Now there are 222 states in the world, of which 43 are in Europe, 49 in Asia, 55 in Africa, 49 in America, 26 in Australia and Oceania; b) International relations began to be influenced by an even greater number of factors: the scientific and technological revolution “was not in vain” (development of information technology).

Secondly, the unevenness of the historical process continues to exist. The gap between the “South” (global village) – underdeveloped countries and the “North” (global city) continues to widen. Economic and political development and the geopolitical landscape as a whole are still determined by the most developed states. If we look at the problem already, then in the conditions of a unipolar world - the United States.

Third, are developing integration processes in the modern system of international relations: LAS, EU, CIS.

Fourthly, in a unipolar world, in which the United States holds the levers of influence, local military conflicts, undermining the authority of international organizations, and, first of all, the UN;

Fifthly, international relations on modern stage institutionalized. The institutionalization of international relations is expressed in the fact that there are norms of international law, evolving towards humanization, as well as various international organizations. The norms of international law are penetrating deeper and deeper into legislative acts of regional significance and into the constitutions of various countries.

At sixth, the role of the religious factor, especially Islam, is increasing, on the modern system of international relations. Political scientists, sociologists, and religious scholars pay increased attention to the study of the “Islamic factor.”

Sixth, international relations at the present stage of development exposed to globalization. Globalization is a historical process of bringing peoples closer together, between which traditional boundaries are erased. A wide range of global processes: scientific, technical, economic, social, political - are increasingly linking countries and regions into a single world community, and national and regional economies - into unified world economy, in which capital easily crosses state borders. Globalization also manifests itself in democratization of political regimes. The number of countries where modern constitutional, judicial, and modern constitutional systems are being introduced is growing. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, 30 countries had already become fully democratic. states or 10% of all countries of the modern world. It should be noted that globalization processes have created problems because they led to the breakdown of traditional socio-economic structures and changed the usual way of life of many people. One of the main global problems can be identified: the problem of relations “West” - “East”, “North” - “South”. The essence of this problem is well known: the gap between rich and poor countries is constantly widening. Remains relevant today and the most home global problem modernity – prevention of thermonuclear war. This is due to the fact that some countries stubbornly strive to possess their own weapons of mass destruction. India and Pakistan carried out experimental nuclear explosions and tested new types missile weapons Iran, North Korea. Syria is intensively developing its chemical weapons program. This situation makes it very likely that weapons of mass destruction will be used in local conflicts. This is evidenced by the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the fall of 2013.

Assessing the role of Russia in the system of international relations, it is necessary to note its ambiguity, which was well expressed by Yu. Shevchuk in the song “Monogorod”: “they reduced the power to a candy wrapper, however, our nuclear shield survived.” On the one hand, Russia has lost access to the seas, and its geopolitical position has worsened. There are problems in politics, economics, and the social sphere that prevent the Russian Federation from claiming the status of a full-fledged competitor to the United States. On the other hand, the presence nuclear weapons, modern armed forces force other countries to reckon with the Russian position. Russia has a good opportunity to assert itself as a global player. All necessary resources there are for this purpose. The Russian Federation is a full member of the international community: it is a member of various international organizations and participates in various meetings. Russia is integrated into various global structures. But at the same time, internal problems, the main one of which is corruption, associated technological backwardness, and the declarative nature of democratic values, prevent the country from realizing its potential.

The role and place of Russia in the modern global world is largely determined by its geopolitical position– placement, power and balance of forces in the world system of states. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 weakened the foreign policy position of the Russian Federation. With the reduction in economic potential, the country's defense capability suffered. Russia found itself pushed to the northeast, deep into the Eurasian continent, losing half of its seaports and direct access to world routes in the West and South. The Russian fleet lost its traditional bases in the Baltic states, and a dispute arose with Ukraine over the basing of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. The former republics of the USSR, which became independent states, nationalized the most powerful strike military groups located on their territory.

Relations with Western countries have acquired particular significance for Russia. The objective basis for the development of Russian-American relations was mutual interest in the formation of a stable and secure system international relations. At the end of 1991 - beginning. 1992 Russian President B. Yeltsin stated that nuclear missiles are no longer aimed at targets in the United States and other Western countries. The joint declaration of the two countries (Camp David, 1992) recorded the end of the Cold War and stated that the Russian Federation and the United States do not consider each other as potential adversaries. In January 1993, a new treaty on the limitation of strategic offensive arms (START-2) was concluded.

However, despite all the assurances, Russian leadership faced the problem of NATO expansion to the East. As a result, the countries of Eastern Europe joined NATO.

Russian-Japanese relations have also undergone evolution. In 1997, the Japanese leadership actually announced a new diplomatic concept towards the Russian Federation. Japan stated that from now on it will separate the problem of the “northern territories” from the entire range of issues in bilateral relations. But Tokyo’s nervous “diplomatic demarche” regarding the visit of Russian President D. Medvedev to Far East says otherwise. The problem of the “northern territories” has not been resolved, which does not contribute to the normalization of Russian-Japanese relations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is also worth noting the significant influence of soft power on the development of modern international relations. Joseph Nye's concept of soft power refers to the ability to achieve desired goals in the international arena without using violent methods (hard power), but by using political ideology, culture of society and state, as well as foreign policy (diplomacy). In Russia, the concept of “soft power” appeared in 2010 in Vladimir Putin’s pre-election article “Russia and the Changing World,” where the president clearly formulated the definition of this concept: “Soft power” is a set of tools and methods for achieving foreign policy goals without the use of weapons, but account of information and other levers of influence.”

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

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

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

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

Links to sources:

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

Gulyants Victoria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Levels of international relations.

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

Vertical - scale levels:

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

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

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

Horizontally - group levels:

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

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

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

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

Types of international relations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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