New system of international relations. International relations at the present stage

MAIN MILESTONES OF THE MODERN HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. ETHNO-DEMOGRAPHIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD.

The history of international relations is a science that studies the totality of economic, political, cultural relations between countries and peoples of the world in historical dynamics. How diverse, complex, and ambiguous in the assessments of scientists and politicians are international relations, how complex, interesting and informative this science is. Just as politics, economics, and culture are interdependent within a single state, these components are inseparable at the level of international relations. In the history of international relations of the twentieth century. can be divided into five main periods.

1 - from the beginning of the century to the First world war inclusive;

2 - the formation and development of a new European equilibrium within the framework of the Versailles system of international relations; it ends with the collapse of the Versailles world order and the establishment of German hegemony in Europe;

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

4 - the period of the "cold war" East - West and the split of Europe;

5 - the time of global changes in the world associated with the crisis and the decay of socialism, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the formation of a new world order.

20th century became the century of globalization of world processes, strengthening of the interdependence of states and peoples of the world. The foreign policy of the leading states was more and more clearly aligned with the interests of not only neighboring, but also geographically distant countries. Simultaneously with the global systems of international relations in Europe, their peripheral subsystems were formed and functioned in the Middle and Far East, Central and South America, etc.

The development of world civilization as a whole and of individual countries is largely determined by the relationships of the peoples inhabiting the Earth.

20th century was marked by the rapid development of international relations, the complication of combinations of interaction between countries in politics, economics, ideology, culture, and religion. Interstate ties went to new level, turning into a relatively stable system of international relations. One of the most important factors that determined the role of the state in the international arena of the 20th century was the population of the country, its ethno-demographic composition.

One of the main trends of recent centuries has been a sharp increase in population. If in the first 15 centuries of our era the world's population grew only 2.5 times, then during the 16th - 19th centuries. The number of people has increased almost 10 times. In 1900 there were 1630 million people in the world. At present, the inhabitants of planet Earth are already more than 6 billion. The most populated countries are China (a little less than 1.5 billion) and

India (more than 1 billion people).

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

The most widely spoken languages ​​in the world are:

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

– English (about 500 million);

- Hindi (about 300 million);

- Spanish (about 280 million);

- Russian (about 220 million);

- Arabic (about 160 million);

- Portuguese (about 160 million);

- Japanese (about 120 million);

- German (about 100 million);

- French (almost 94 million).

These languages ​​are spoken by almost two-thirds of humanity. The official and working languages ​​of the UN are English, French, Russian, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese.

RELIGION. With the development of society, the strengthening of contacts between peoples, there are more religious communities than before; the same religion can be professed different nations. By the twentieth century. most of the major modern peoples belonged to one of the world religions - Christianity, Buddhism or Islam.

Among the forerunners of these religions are:

Judaism - the first monotheistic religion, appeared among the ancient Jews;

Zoroastrianism is based on its dualism - the idea of ​​the confrontation between good and evil principles;

Confucianism and Taoism (religious, ethical and philosophical doctrines that arose in ancient China);

Hinduism, which is characterized by belief in the transmigration of souls;

Shinto (Japan).

If we try to present the population of the Earth through the prism of confessional affiliation, we get:

Christians - more than 1 billion, of which:

- Catholics - about 600 million;

- Protestants - about 350 million;

- Orthodox - about 80 million.

Interestingly, the majority of Catholics and Protestants currently live in the New World.

Islam is practiced by more than 800 million people, of which

- Sunnis - 730 million;

- Shiites - 70 million.

Hinduism - the ancient religion of India - is revered by 520 million people. Despite such a number of adherents (adherents), this religion is not among the world ones, as it is purely national in nature.

Buddhism - the oldest of the world's religions - is practiced by about 250 million people.

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

Religion unites peoples, but it can also cause enmity, conflicts and wars, when people of the same ethnic group, speaking the same language, are capable of fratricidal wars. At present, the religious factor is one of the key factors in international relations.

The global scale and radical nature of the changes taking place today in the political, economic, spiritual areas of the life of the world community, in the sphere of military security, allow us to put forward assumptions about the formation

a new system of international relations, different from those that functioned throughout the 20th century, and in many respects, starting from the classical Westphalian system.

In the world and domestic literature, a more or less stable approach to the systematization of international relations has developed, depending on their content, composition of participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that international (interstate) relations proper originated during the formation of national states in the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The end of the “Thirty Years’ War” in Europe and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is taken as a starting point. Since then, the entire 350-year period of international interaction has been considered by many, especially Western, researchers as the history of a single Westphalian system. The dominant subjects of this system are sovereign states. There is no supreme arbiter in the system, therefore states are independent in conducting domestic policy within their national borders and are in principle equal in rights.

Most scholars agree that the main driving force behind the Westphalian system of international relations was rivalry between states: some sought to increase their influence, while others tried to prevent this. The outcome of the rivalry, as a rule, was determined by the balance of power between the states or unions that they entered to achieve their foreign policy goals. The establishment of an equilibrium, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations; the disruption of the balance of power ultimately led to war and its restoration in a new configuration, reflecting the growing influence of some states at the expense of others. For clarity and simplification, this system is compared with the movement of billiard balls. States collide with each other in changing configurations and then move again in an endless struggle for influence or security. The main principle in this case is self-interest. The main criterion is strength.

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

states. In this case, they usually distinguish:

- the system of predominantly Anglo-French rivalry in Europe and the struggle for colonies in the 17th-18th centuries;

- the system of the “European concert of nations” or the “Congress of Vienna” of the 19th century;

- Versailles-Washington system between the two world wars;

- the Cold War system, or Yalta-Potsdam.

Obviously, in the second half of the 80s - early 90s. 20th century cardinal changes have taken place in international relations, which allow us to speak of the end of the Cold War and the formation of new system-forming patterns.

Most foreign and domestic international experts take the wave of political changes in the countries of Central Europe in the autumn of 1989 as a watershed between the Cold War and the current stage of international relations, and consider the fall of the Berlin Wall as a clear example. The obvious distinctive moments of the birth of the new system compared to the previous one are the removal of the political and ideological confrontation between “anti-communism” and “communism” due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the curtailment of the military confrontation of the blocs that were grouped around the two poles during the Cold War - Washington and Moscow.

AT recent times There is a growing pessimistic lament that the new international situation is less stable, less predictable and even more dangerous than in previous decades. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the change of systems does not occur instantly, but gradually, in the struggle between the new and the old, and the feeling of increased instability and danger is caused by the variability of the new and incomprehensible world.

Plan:

1. The 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 world 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 bipolar system international relations. In it, the USA and the USSR acted as two superpowers. Between them - 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 ​​a new political thinking. He stated that the main problem is the survival of mankind. According to Gorbachev, all foreign policy activity should be subordinated to its solution. The decisive role was played by the negotiations at the highest level between M. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, and then George W. 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 Arms (START-1) in 1991. Contributed to the normalization of international relations and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan to 1989 year.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued its pro-Western, pro-American policy. A number of treaties on further disarmament and cooperation were concluded. These treaties include START-2, concluded in 1993 year. The consequences of such a policy are to reduce the threat of a new war with the use of weapons. 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, followed by the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the CMEA, and the socialist camp, contributed to the transformation of the international system. From bipolar, it turned into a unipolar, where leading role USA played. The Americans, having turned out to be the only superpower, set out to build up their weapons, including the latest, and also promoted the expansion of NATO to the East. AT 2001 The United States withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty. AT 2007 The Americans announced the deployment of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, next to the Russian Federation. The US has taken a course to support M. Saakashvili's regime in Georgia. AT 2008 Georgia, with the military-political, economic support of the United States, attacked South Ossetia, attacking Russian peacekeepers, which grossly contradicts the norms of international law. The aggression was repelled by Russian troops and local militias.

Serious changes took place in Europe at the turn of the 80-90s of the twentieth century . Germany unified in 1990. AT In 1991, the CMEA and the Department of Internal Affairs were liquidated. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. In 2004 - Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. In 2009 - Albania, Croatia. The expansion of NATO to the East, which cannot but disturb the Russian Federation, has taken place.

With the threat of global war reduced, local conflicts in Europe and the post-Soviet space intensified. There were armed conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in Transnistria, Tajikistan, Georgia, in the North Caucasus. Particularly bloody were the political conflicts in Yugoslavia. They are characterized by mass ethnic cleansing, flows of refugees. In 1999 NATO at the head of the United States, without UN sanction, he committed open aggression against Yugoslavia, starting the bombing of this country. In 2011 NATO countries attacked Libya, overthrowing the political regime of Muammar Gaddafi. At the same time, the head of Libya was physically destroyed.

Another hotbed of tension continues to exist in the Middle East. Troubled region is Iraq. The relationship between India and Pakistan. In Africa, interstate and civil wars periodically flare up, accompanied by mass extermination of the population. Tensions persist in some regions former USSR. Apart from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, there are other unrecognized republics here - Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh.

11.09.2001 in the USA- tragedy. Americans have become the object of aggression. AT 2001 The United States has declared the fight against terrorism to be its main goal. Under this pretext, the Americans invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime was overthrown with the help of local forces. This led to a multifold increase in the drug trade. In Afghanistan itself fighting between the Taliban and the occupying forces are intensifying. The role and authority of the UN has diminished. The UN has not been able to resist American aggression.

However, it is clear that the United States is experiencing many problems that undermine its geopolitical power. The economic crisis of 2008, which began in the United States, testifies to this. Americans alone cannot solve global problems. In addition, the Americans themselves in 2013 were once again on the brink of default. Many domestic and foreign researchers speak about the problems of the American financial system. Under these conditions, alternative forces appeared, which 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 hindered by various factors. Among them are socio-economic problems and disagreements between the EU member states. China, India, despite economic growth, still remain "countries of contrasts". The low standard of living of the population, the socio-economic problems of these countries do not allow them to become full-fledged competitors to the United States. This also applies to modern Russia.

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

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 other 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 is forcing more and more people to look at Muslims with distrust. At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, the socio-political activity of Islamists began to grow on the wave of disappointment in the ideas of secular nationalism. Islam has gone on the offensive. Islamization captured the educational system, political life, culture, way of life. Separate currents of Islam at the turn of the century closely merged with terrorism.

Modern terrorism has become a danger to the whole world. Since the 80s of the twentieth century, Islamic paramilitary terrorist groups have been developing great activity in the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah. Their interference in the 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 consider the Islamic challenge as a consequence of civilizational confrontation (the concept of S. Huntington). Others focus on economic interests behind the activation of the Islamic factor. For example, the countries of the Middle East are rich in oil. The starting point of the third approach is the analysis geopolitical factors. It is assumed that there is certain political forces that use such movements and organizations for their own purposes. Fourth says that activation of the religious factor is a form of national liberation struggle.

The countries of the Islamic world for a long time existed on the sidelines of rapidly developing capitalism. Everything changed in the second half of the twentieth century, after decolonization, which took place under the sign of the return of independence to the oppressed countries. In this situation, when the whole 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 exacerbated by globalization. Under these conditions, Islam becomes a tool 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 the ethics of Protestantism on the development of capitalist relations. This relationship was well revealed by the German philosopher, sociologist, political scientist M. Weber. Catholic Church, for example, influenced the political processes that took place in Poland during the Velvet Revolution. She managed to maintain moral authority under the conditions of an authoritarian political regime and influence the change of political power to take civilizational forms, so that various political forces come to a consensus.

Thus, the role of the religious factor in modern international relations at the turn of the century is increasing. The fact that it often acquires non-civilizational forms and is associated with terrorism and political extremism gives alarm.

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 oraginizations are raising their heads. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, for example. They set themselves the goal of Islamizing the entire region.

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

Not the last role was played in this by the events in the Middle East, known as the "Arab Spring". 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 such countries as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Iraq.

The Arab Spring began with protests in Tunisia on December 18, 2010, when Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest against corruption and police brutality. To date, the “Arab Spring” has led to the fact that several heads of state have been overthrown in a revolutionary form: Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ali, Mubarak, and then Mirsi in Egypt, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. He was overthrown on 08/23/2011 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 on the territory of Palestine: an Arab and a Jewish one.. Jerusalem stood out as an independent unit. May 1948 The State of Israel was proclaimed and the first Arab-Israeli war began. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq led troops to Palestine. War is over in 1949 year. Israel occupied more than half of the territory intended for the Arab state, as well as the western part of Jerusalem. So, the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-1949. ended with the defeat of the Arabs.

In June 1967 Israel launched military operations against the Arab states in response to the activities PLO - Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat, founded 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, Jordan. However, the protests of the world community against aggression, which the USSR joined, forced Israel to stop the offensive. During the six-day war, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the eastern part of Jerusalem.

In 1973 A new Arab-Israeli war began. Egypt managed to free part of the Sinai Peninsula. In 1970 and 1982 - 1991 gg. Israeli troops invaded Lebanese territory to fight Palestinian refugees. Part of Lebanese territory came under Israeli control. Only at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Israeli troops left Lebanon.

All attempts by the UN and the leading world powers to achieve an end to the conflict have not been successful. Since 1987 in the occupied territories of Palestine began intifada - Palestinian uprising. In the mid 90s. an agreement was reached between the leaders of Israel and the PLO on the creation of autonomy in Palestine. But the Palestinian Authority was completely dependent on Israel, and Jewish settlements remained on its territory. The situation escalated in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, when second intifada. Israel was forced to withdraw its troops and migrants from the Gaza Strip. Mutual shelling of the territory of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, terrorist acts continued. On November 11, 2004, Y. Arafat died. In the summer of 2006, there was a war between Israel and the Hezbolah organization in Lebanon. In late 2008 - early 2009, Israeli troops attacked the Gaza Strip. Armed actions led to the death of hundreds of Palestinians.

In conclusion, we note that the Arab-Israeli conflict is far from its end: in addition to the mutual territorial claims of the conflicting parties, there is a religious and ideological confrontation between them. If the Arabs consider the Koran as a world constitution, then the Jews are about the triumph of the Torah. If Muslims dream of recreating the Arab caliphate, then the 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 fact that: 1) in 1991 was established CIS- a union of independent states, uniting the former republics of the USSR; 2) LAS- League of Arab States. This is an international organization that unites not only the Arab states, but also those that are friendly to the Arab countries. Created in 1945. The supreme body is the Council of the League. The LAS includes 19 Arab countries North Africa and the Middle East. Among them: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Somalia. Headquarters - Cairo. The LAS is engaged in political integration. In Cairo, on December 27, 2005, the first session of the Arab Parliament was held, the headquarters of which is in Damascus. In 2008, the Arab Charter on Human Rights came into force, which differs significantly from European legislation. The charter is based on Islam. It equates Zionism with racism and allows the death penalty for minors. LAS is headed by the General Secretary. From 2001 to 2011 he was Aler Musa, and since 2011 - Nabil al-Arabi; 3) EU- European Union. The EU is legally anchored 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 is striving not only for political but also for economic integration.

Integration and institutionalization of international relations is manifested in the existence of international organizations. Let us give a brief description of international organizations and their areas of activity.

Name	the date	Characteristic
UN		An international organization created to support and strengthen international peace and security. For 2011 included 193 states. Most of the contributions are from the United States. General Secretaries: Boutros Boutros Ghali (1992 - 1997), Kofi Annan (1997 - 2007), Ban Ki-moon (2007 to date). Official languages: English, French, Russian, Chinese. RF is a member of the UN
ILO		United Nations specialized regulatory agency labor relations. RF is a member of the ILO
WTO		An international organization created to liberalize trade. The Russian Federation has been a member of the WTO since 2012.
NATO		The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the world's largest military-political bloc, uniting most of the countries of Europe, the USA, Canada.
EU		An economic and political association of European states 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. The Russian Federation in the 90s turned to these organizations for help.
WHO		A specialized agency of the United Nations dealing with international health problems. WHO members are 193 states, including the Russian Federation.
UNESCO		United Nations Organization for Education, Science, Culture. The main goal is to contribute to the strengthening of peace and security by expanding cooperation between states and peoples. RF 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 social relations, need pro-authorization regulation. Therefore, a whole branch of law appeared - international law, dealing with the regulation of relations between countries.

Principles and norms relating to the field of human rights have been developed and adopted both in domestic law and in international law. Historically, the norms governing the activities of states during armed conflicts were originally formed. Unlike international conventions aimed at limiting the brutality of war and ensuring humanitarian standards for prisoners of war, the wounded, combatants, civilians, principles and norms regarding human rights in peace began to take shape only at the beginning of the twentieth century. International agreements in the field of human rights are divided into the following groups. The first group includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenants on Human Rights. 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, Additional Protocols to them adopted in 1977. The third group consists of documents that regulate liability for violation of human rights in peacetime and during armed conflicts: sentences 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 sharp 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, the US Constitution of 1787. The USSR insisted that the Constitution of the USSR 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 the articles of the Soviet Constitution, which proclaimed the right of every nation to self-determination. Fundamental differences were also found in ideological approaches. Nevertheless, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, after a long discussion, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in the form of its resolution on December 10, 1948. Therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, containing a list of his various freedoms, is advisory in nature. However, this fact does not diminish the significance 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 content of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which refers to the numerous rights of a person, person, citizen, and their legal statuses, one might think that the Russian constitution was written "under carbon copy".

Date of adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 10.12.1948 celebrated as International Human Rights Day. Declaration in Latin means statement. A declaration is an official proclaimed by the state of the basic principles that are advisory in nature. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. It is proclaimed that every person has the right to life, liberty, personal inviolability. The provision on the presumption of innocence is also included: A person accused of 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, receiving and disseminating information.

By adopting the Universal Declaration, the General Assembly instructed the Commission on Human Rights, through the Economic and Social Council, to develop a single package covering a wide range of fundamental rights and freedoms. In 1951, the UN General Assembly, having considered at its session 18 articles of the Covenant containing civil and political rights, adopted a resolution in which it decided to include economic, social and cultural rights in the Covenant. However, the US and its allies insisted that the Pact 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 have been in preparation for over 20 years. As in the development of the Universal Declaration, in the process of their discussion, 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 Pacts. But in practice they were not carried out. 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, assumed obligations 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 a comparative analysis of the content of legal sources, it follows that the Constitution of the Russian Federation has secured 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 characterization. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Pact in Latin means contract, agreement. The pact is one of the 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 have relatively recently begun to be proclaimed and consolidated by the legislation of various countries of the world and international documents. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a qualitatively new stage begins in the international legal regulation of these rights. A specific list of them in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights begins from the proclamation of the human right to work (art. 6), the right of everyone to favorable and fair working conditions (art. 7), the right to social security and social insurance (art. 9), the right of everyone to a decent standard of living (art. 11) . According to the pact, a person has the right to decent remuneration, to a fair wage, the right to strike in accordance with local legislation. The document also notes that career advancement should be regulated not by family ties, but by seniority, qualifications. The family should be under the protection and protection of the state.

It should 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 list of rights and freedoms that should be granted by each state party to all persons without any restrictions. Note that there is also a substantive relationship between the two Covenants: a number of provisions contained in the International Covenant for Civil and Political Freedoms relate to issues that are regulated by 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 on the family, marriage, children, proclaiming the equality of rights and obligations 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 every state: the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery, the slave trade and forced labor, the right of everyone to liberty and security of person (arts. 6-9), the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 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 lies in the fact that it enshrines the principle of modern international law, according to which fundamental rights and freedoms must be observed in any situation, including the period of military conflicts.

The international community has adopted and optional protocols. Under optional protocols in international law is understood as a kind 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 the adoption of the optional protocol was as follows. During the drafting of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the question of the procedure for handling individual complaints was discussed for a long time. Austria has proposed the establishment of a special international court for human rights within the framework of the Covenant. Not only states as subjects of international law, but also individuals, groups of persons, non-governmental organizations could initiate a case. The USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe - satellites of the USSR, opposed. As a result of the discussion of the issues, it was decided not to include in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provisions on the 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 has become 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 even more 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) - the underdeveloped countries and the "North" (global city) continues to widen. Economic, political development, the geopolitical landscape as a whole is still determined by the most developed states. If you look at the problem already, then in the conditions of a unipolar world - the United States.

Thirdly, integration processes are developing in the modern system of international relations: Arab League, EU, CIS.

Fourth, in the conditions of a unipolar world, in which the levers of influence belong to the United States, there are local military conflicts undermining the authority of international organizations, and, first of all, the UN;

Fifth, international relations at the present stage are institutionalized. The institutionalization of international relations is expressed in the fact that there are international law, evolving towards humanization, as well as various international organizations. The norms of international law penetrate deeper and deeper into legislative acts of regional significance, 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, religious scholars pay increased attention to the study of the "Islamic factor".

Sixth, international relations at the present stage of development subject to globalization. Globalization is a historical process of rapprochement of peoples, between which traditional boundaries are being erased.. Wide spectrum global processes: scientific and technical, economic, social, political - are increasingly linking countries and regions into a single world community, and national and regional economies into single 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, modern constitutional systems are being introduced is growing. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, there were already 30 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, they changed the usual way of life for many people. One of the main global problems can be identified - this is the problem of relations "West" - "East", "North" - "South". The essence of this problem is well known: the gap in the level between rich and poor countries is constantly increasing. Remains relevant today and the most The main global problem of our time is the prevention of thermonuclear war. This is due to the fact that some countries are stubbornly striving to possess their own weapons of mass destruction. Carried out experimental nuclear explosions India, Pakistan, tested new types missile weapons Iran, North Korea. Strengthening the program of creation chemical weapons Syria. 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 should be noted its ambiguity, which was well expressed by Y. Shevchuk in the song "Monocity": "they reduced the state to a candy wrapper, however, our nuclear shield survived." On the one hand, Russia has lost access to the seas, its geopolitical position has worsened. In politics, economics, and the social sphere, there are problems 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 means are forcing other countries to reckon with the Russian position. Russia has good opportunity declare itself as a global player. All the necessary resources for this are available. The Russian Federation is a full-fledged 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 of which is corruption, the technological backwardness associated with it, 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- location, power and balance of forces in the world system of states. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 weakened the foreign policy positions of the Russian Federation. With the reduction of the economic potential, the country's defense capability suffered. Russia turned out to be pushed to the northeast, deep into the Eurasian continent, while losing half of the seaports, direct access to world routes in the West and South. The Russian fleet lost its traditional bases in the Baltics, a dispute arose with Ukraine about the basing of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in Sevastopol. The former republics of the USSR, which became independent states, nationalized the most powerful shock military groups located on their territory.

Relations with Western countries have acquired special significance for Russia. The objective basis for the development of Russian-American relations was the mutual interest in the formation of a stable and secure system of international relations. At the end of 1991 - early. 1992 Russian President B. Yeltsin announced that nuclear missiles were 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 (OSNV-2) was signed.

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

Russian-Japanese relations have also evolved. In 1997, the Japanese leadership actually announced a new diplomatic concept in relation to the Russian Federation. Japan stated that from now on it will separate the problem of the "northern territories" from the whole range of issues of bilateral relations. But Tokyo's nervous "diplomatic demarche" regarding the visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the Far East suggests otherwise. The problem of the "northern territories" has not been resolved, which does not contribute to the normalization of Russian-Japanese relations.

UDC 327(075) G.N.Krainov

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND ITS FEATURES AT THE PRESENT STAGE

Speaking at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Sochi, October 24, 2014) with the report “World Order: New Rules or a Game Without Rules?” President of Russia V.V. Putin noted that the global system of “checks and balances” that developed during the Cold War years was destroyed with the active participation of the United States, but the dominance of one center of power only led to growing chaos in international relations. According to him, the United States, faced with the inefficiency of the unipolar world, is trying to recreate "some semblance of a quasi-bipolar system", looking for an "image of the enemy" in the face of Iran, China or Russia. The Russian leader believes that the international community is at a historical crossroads, where there is a threat of playing without rules in the world order, that a "reasonable reconstruction" should be carried out in the world order (1).

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

In this regard, the historical and political science analysis of the evolution of the system of international relations and consideration of options formation of a new world order at the present stage.

It should be noted that until the middle of the XVII century. international relations were characterized by the disunity of their participants, the unsystematic nature of international interactions, the main manifestation of which was short-term armed conflicts or long-term wars. In different periods, the historical hegemons in the world were Ancient Egypt, the Persian Empire, the Power of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Empire of Charlemagne, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. All of them were focused on establishing their sole domination, building a unipolar world. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church, headed by the papacy, tried to establish its dominance over peoples and states. International relations had an anarchic character and were distinguished by great uncertainty. As a result, each participant in international relations was forced to take steps based on the unpredictability of the behavior of other participants, which led to open conflicts.

The modern system of interstate relations dates back to 1648, when the Peace of Westphalia put an end to the Thirty Years' War in Western Europe and sanctioned the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire into independent states. Since that time, as the main form political organization society, the national state is universally affirmed (in Western terminology - “nation-state”), and the principle of national (i.e. state) sovereignty becomes the dominant principle of international relations. The main fundamental provisions of the Westphalian model of the world were:

The world consists of sovereign states (accordingly, there is no single supreme power in the world, and there is no principle of a universalist hierarchy of control);

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

A sovereign state has unlimited power over its citizens within its territory;

The world is governed by international law, understood as the law of treaties between sovereign states that must be respected; - sovereign states are subjects of international law, only they are internationally recognized subjects;

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

At the heart of the idea of ​​a nation-state with sovereignty, there were four main characteristics: the presence of territory; the presence of the population living in the given territory; legitimate control of the population; recognition by other nation-states. At

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

In the absence of at least one of these characteristics, the state becomes sharply limited in its capabilities, or ceases to exist. The basis of the state-centric model of the world was "national interests", on which it is possible to search for compromise solutions (rather than value orientations, in particular religious ones, on which compromises are impossible). An important feature of the Westphalian model was the geographical limitation of its scope. It had a distinctly Eurocentric character.

After the Peace of Westphalia, it became customary to keep permanent residents, diplomats, at foreign courts. For the first time in historical practice, interstate borders were redrawn and clearly defined. Thanks to this, coalitions, interstate alliances began to emerge, which gradually began to acquire importance. The papacy lost its importance as a supranational force. States in foreign policy began to be guided by their own interests and ambitions.

At this time, the theory of European equilibrium arises, which was developed in the works of N. Machiavelli. He proposed to establish a balance of power between the five Italian states. The theory of European balance will eventually be accepted by all of Europe, and it will work up to the present, being the basis of international unions, coalitions of states.

At the beginning of the XVIII century. at the conclusion of the Peace of Utrecht (1713), which put an end to the struggle for the Spanish inheritance between France and Spain, on the one hand, and a coalition of states led by Great Britain, on the other, the concept of "balance of power" (English: balance of power) appears in international documents, supplementing the Westphalian model and widely used in the political vocabulary of the second half of the 20th century. The balance of power is the distribution of world influence between individual centers of power - poles and can take on various configurations: bipolar, tripolar, multipolar (or multipolar)

it. e. The main goal of the balance of power is to prevent the dominance of one or a group of states in the international system, to ensure the maintenance of international order.

Based on the views of N. Machiavelli, T. Gobs, as well as A. Smith, J.-J. Rousseau and others, the first theoretical schemes of political realism and liberalism are formed.

From a political point of view, the system of the Peace of Westphalia (sovereign states) still exists, but from a historical point of view, it collapsed at the beginning of the 19th century.

The system of international relations that developed after the Napoleonic wars was normatively fixed by the Vienna Congress of 1814-1815. The victorious powers saw the meaning of their collective international activity in the creation of reliable barriers against the spread of revolutions. Hence the appeal to the ideas of legitimism. The Vienna system of international relations is characterized by the idea of ​​a European concert - a balance of power between European states. The "Concert of Europe" (English: Concert of Europe) was based on the general consent of the large states: Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, Great Britain. The elements of the Vienna system were not only states, but also coalitions of states. The "Concert of Europe", remaining a form of hegemony of large states and coalitions, for the first time effectively limited their freedom of action in the international arena.

The Vienna international system asserted the balance of power established as a result of the Napoleonic wars and fixed the borders of national states. Russia secured Finland, Bessarabia and expanded its western borders at the expense of Poland, dividing it among itself, Austria and Prussia.

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

Within the framework of this system, the concept of great powers was first formulated (then, first of all, Russia, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia), multilateral diplomacy and diplomatic protocol took shape. Many researchers call the Vienna System of International Relations the first example of collective security.

At the beginning of the 20th century, new states entered the world arena. This is primarily the United States, Japan, Germany, Italy. From this moment on, Europe ceases to be the only continent where new world-leading states are being formed.

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

The world is gradually ceasing to be Eurocentric, the international system is beginning to turn into a global one.

The Versailles-Washington system of international relations is a multipolar world order, the foundations of which were laid at the end of the First World War of 1914-1918. Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, treaties with Germany's allies, agreements concluded at the Washington Conference of 1921-1922.

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

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

which made this structure vulnerable to the demands of its transformation and did not contribute to long-term stability in world affairs. Its characteristic feature was an anti-Soviet orientation. The greatest beneficiaries of the Versailles system were Great Britain, France and the United States. At that time, a civil war was going on in Russia, the victory in which remained with the Bolsheviks.

The refusal of the United States to participate in the functioning of the Versailles system, the isolation of Soviet Russia and the anti-German orientation turned it into an unbalanced and contradictory system, thereby increasing the potential for future world conflict.

It should be noted that integral part The Treaty of Versailles was the Charter of the League of Nations - an intergovernmental organization that defined as the main goals the development of cooperation between peoples, guarantees of their peace and security. Initially, 44 states signed it. The United States did not ratify this treaty and did not become a member of the League of Nations. Then the USSR, as well as Germany, did not enter it.

One of the key ideas in the creation of the League of Nations was the idea of ​​collective security. States were supposed to have a legitimate right to resist an aggressor. In practice, as is well known, this could not be done, and in 1939 the world was plunged into a new world war. The League of Nations also effectively ceased to exist in 1939, although it was formally dissolved in 1946. However, many elements of the structure and procedure, as well as the main objectives of the League of Nations, were inherited by the United Nations (UN).

The Washington system, which extended to the Asia-Pacific region, was somewhat more balanced, but it was also not universal. Its instability was determined by the uncertainty of China's political development, the militaristic foreign policy of Japan, the then isolationism of the United States, and others.

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is a system of international relations, fixed by treaties and agreements at the Yalta (February 4-11, 1945) and Potsdam (July 17 - August 2, 1945) conferences of the heads of state of the Anti-Hitler Coalition.

For the first time, the question of a post-war settlement at the highest level was raised as early as during the Tehran Conference in 1943, where even then the strengthening of the position of the two powers - the USSR and the USA, was clearly manifested, to which the decisive role in determining the parameters of the post-war world, that is, even in In the course of the war, the prerequisites for the formation of the foundations of a future bipolar world are emerging. This trend was fully manifested at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, when the main role in solving key problems related to the formation of a new model of international relations was played by two, now superpowers, the USSR and the USA. The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations was characterized by:

The absence (unlike, for example, of the Versailles-Washington system) of the necessary legal framework, which made it very vulnerable to criticism and recognition by some states;

Bipolarity based on the military-political superiority of the two superpowers (USSR and the USA) over other countries. Around them there was a formation of blocs (OVD and NATO). Bipolarity was not limited only by the military and power superiority of the two states, it covered almost all spheres - socio-political, economic, ideological, scientific and technical, cultural, etc.;

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

Confrontation, which meant that the parties constantly opposed their actions to each other. Competition, rivalry and antagonism, rather than cooperation, between blocs were the leading characteristics of the relationship;

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

The political and ideological confrontation between the West and the East, capitalism and socialism, which brought additional uncompromisingness to international relations in the event of disagreements and conflicts;

A relatively high degree of controllability of international processes due to the fact that it was required to coordinate the positions of actually only two superpowers (5, pp. 21-22). Post-war realities, the intransigence of confrontational relations between the USSR and the USA, significantly limited the ability of the UN to realize its statutory functions and goals.

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

During these years, the arms race, and then its limitation, the problems of military security were the central issues of international relations. In general, the fierce rivalry between the two blocs, which more than once threatened to turn into a new world war, was called the cold war (English: cold war). The most dangerous moment in the history of the post-war period was the Caribbean (Cuban) crisis of 1962, when the US and the USSR seriously discussed the possibility of delivering a nuclear strike.

Both opposing blocs had military-political alliances - Organization

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO (English: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; NATO), formed in 1949, and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTS) - in 1955. The concept of "balance of power" has become one of the key elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations . The world turned out to be "divided" into zones of influence between the two blocs. For them, a fierce struggle was waged.

A significant stage in the development of the political system of the world was the collapse of colonialism. In the 1960s, almost the entire African continent was freed from colonial dependence. Developing countries began to influence the political development of the world. They joined the UN, and in 1955 formed the Nonaligned Movement, which, according to the creators, was supposed to oppose the two opposing blocs.

The destruction of the colonial system, the formation of regional and subregional subsystems was carried out under the dominant influence of the horizontal spread of the systemic bipolar confrontation and the growing trends of economic and political globalization.

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

enshrined in the Belovezhskaya Accords of 1991

After 1991, a fragile and contradictory Belovezhskaya system of international relations was established (Western researchers call it Post Cold-War era), which is characterized by polycentric unipolarity. The essence of this world order was the implementation of the historical project of spreading the standards of Western "neoliberal democracy" to the whole world. Political scientists came up with the "concept of American global leadership" in "soft" and "hard" forms. The "hard hegemony" was based on the idea of ​​the United States as the only power with sufficient economic and military power to implement the idea of ​​global leadership. To consolidate its exclusive status, the United States, according to this concept, should, if possible, deepen the gap between itself and other states. "Soft hegemony", according to this concept, is aimed at creating the image of the United States as a model for the whole world: striving for a leading position in the world, America should gently put pressure on other states and convince them by the power of its own example.

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

American hegemony was expressed in presidential doctrines: Truman,

Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush - endowed the United States during the Cold War with almost unlimited rights to ensure security in a particular region of the world; Clinton's doctrine was based on the thesis of "expanding democracy" in Eastern Europe with the aim of turning the former socialist states into a "strategic reserve" of the West. The United States (within the framework of NATO operations) twice carried out armed intervention in Yugoslavia - in Bosnia (1995) and in Kosovo (1999). The "expansion of democracy" was also expressed in the fact that in 1999 the former members of the Warsaw Pact Organization - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - were included in the North Atlantic Alliance for the first time; George W. Bush's "hard" hegemony doctrine was a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and was based on three pillars: unsurpassed military power, the concept of preventive war, and unilateralism. States that support terrorism or develop weapons appeared as a potential adversary in the Bush Doctrine. mass destruction, - speaking before Congress in 2002, the president used the well-known expression "axis of evil" in relation to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. White House categorically refused to engage in dialogue with such regimes and declared his determination to promote their elimination by all means (up to armed intervention). The frankly hegemonic aspirations of the administration of George W. Bush, Jr., and then B. Obama catalyzed the growth of anti-American sentiment around the world, including the activation of an “asymmetric response” in the form of transnational terrorism (3, p. 256-257).

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

Finally, this project violated the balance of power and had no contractual basis at all, which V.V. pointed out in his Valdai speech in Sochi. Putin (1). It was based on a chain of precedents and unilateral doctrines and concepts of the United States, which were mentioned above (2, p. 112).

At first, the events associated with the collapse of the USSR, the end of the Cold War, etc., were received with enthusiasm and even romanticism in many countries, primarily Western ones. In 1989, an article by Francis Fukuyama (F. Fukuyama) “The End of History?” appeared in the USA. (The End of the History?), and in 1992 his book The End of History and the Last Man. In them, the author predicted the triumph, the triumph of Western-style liberal democracy, saying that this indicates the end point of the socio-cultural evolution of mankind and the formation of the final form of government, the end of a century of ideological confrontations, global revolutions and wars, art and philosophy, and with them - the end history (6, pp. 68-70; 7, pp. 234-237).

The concept of the "end of history" had a great influence on the formation of the foreign policy of US President George W. Bush and actually became the "canonical text" of the neoconservatives, as it was in tune with the main goal of their foreign policy - the active promotion of Western-style liberal democracy and the free market around the world. And after the events of September 11, 2011, the Bush administration came to the conclusion that Fukuyama's historical forecast is passive and that history needs conscious organization, leadership and management in the appropriate spirit, including through the change of objectionable regimes as a key component of anti-terrorism policy.

Then, in the early 1990s, a surge of conflicts followed, moreover in seemingly calm Europe (which caused particular concern for both Europeans and Americans). This gave rise to exactly the opposite mood. Samuel Huntington (S. Huntington) in 1993 in the article "Clash of Civilizations" (The Clash of Civilizations) spoke from positions opposite to F. Fukuyama, predicting conflicts on a civilizational basis (8, p. 53-54). In the book of the same name, published in 1996, S. Huntington tried to prove the thesis about the inevitability of a confrontation between the Islamic and Western worlds in the near future, which would resemble the Soviet-American confrontation during the Cold War (9, p. 348-350). These publications have also received wide discussion in various countries. Then, when the number of armed conflicts began to decline, there was a ceasefire in Europe as well, and S. Huntington's idea of ​​civilizational wars began to be forgotten. However, the surge in violent and demonstrative terrorist attacks in the early 2000s in various parts of the globe (especially the explosion of the twin towers in the United States on September 11, 2001), hooligan pogroms in the cities of France, Belgium and other European countries, undertaken by immigrants from Asian countries, Africa and the Middle East, forced many, especially journalists, to

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

talk about the clash of civilizations. Discussions unfolded regarding the causes and characteristics of modern terrorism, nationalism and extremism, the opposition of the rich "North" and the poor "South", etc.

Today, the principle of American hegemony is contradicted by the factor of the growing heterogeneity of the world, in which states with different socio-economic, political, cultural and value systems coexist. Unreal

there is also a project of spreading the Western model of liberal democracy, way of life, system of values ​​as general norms accepted by all or at least most of the states of the world. It is opposed by equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification along ethnic, national, and religious principles, which is expressed in the growing influence of nationalist, traditionalist, and fundamentalist ideas in the world. In addition to sovereign states, transnational and supranational associations are becoming more and more active as independent players on the world stage. Modern international system is distinguished by an enormous increase in the number of interactions between its various participants at different levels. As a result, it becomes not only more interdependent, but also mutually vulnerable, which requires the creation of new and the reform of existing institutions and mechanisms for maintaining stability (such as the UN, IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, EAEU, BRICS, SCO, etc.). Therefore, in opposition to the idea of ​​a "unipolar world," the thesis about the need to develop and strengthen a multipolar model of international relations as a system of "balance of power" is increasingly being put forward. At the same time, one must bear in mind that any multipolar system in a critical situation tends to transform into a bipolar one. This is clearly shown today by the acute Ukrainian crisis.

Thus, history knows 5 models of the system of international relations. Each of the successively replacing each other models passed through several phases in its development: from the phase of formation to the phase of disintegration. Up to and including the Second World War, major military conflicts were the starting point of the next cycle in the transformation of the system of international relations. In the course of them, a radical regrouping of forces was carried out, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries changed, and a serious redrawing of borders took place. These advances made it possible to eliminate the old pre-war contradictions and clear the way for a new round of development.

The emergence of nuclear weapons and the achievement of parity in this area between the USSR and the United States held back from direct military conflicts. The confrontation intensified in the economy, ideology, culture, although there were also local military conflicts. For objective and subjective reasons, the USSR collapsed, followed by the socialist bloc, the bipolar system ceased to function.

But the attempt to establish unipolar American hegemony is failing today. A new world order can be born only as a result of joint creativity of the members of the world community. One of the optimal forms of world governance can be collective (cooperative) governance, carried out through a flexible network system, the cells of which would be international organizations (updated UN, WTO, EU, EAEU, etc.), trade and economic, information, telecommunications, transport and other systems . Such a world system will be distinguished by increased dynamics of change, have several points of growth and change simultaneously in several directions.

The emerging world system, taking into account the balance of power, can be polycentric, and its centers themselves diversified, so that the global structure of power will turn out to be multilevel and multidimensional (centers of military power will not coincide with centers of economic power, etc.). The centers of the world system will have both common features and political, social, economic, ideological and civilizational features.

Ideas and proposals of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin expressed at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on October 24, 2014 in this spirit, will be analyzed by the world community and implemented in international contractual practice. This was confirmed by the agreements between the United States and China signed on November 11, 2014 in Beijing at the APEC summit (Obama and Xi Jinping signed agreements on opening the US domestic market for China, on notifying each other of their desire to enter "near-territorial" waters, etc. .). The proposals of the President of the Russian Federation were also treated with attention at the G20 summit in Brisbane (Australia) on November 14-16, 2014.

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

Today, on the basis of these ideas and values, a contradictory process of transformation of the unipolar world into a new multipolar system of international relations based on the balance of power is taking place.

LITERATURE:

1. Putin, V.V. World order: New rules or a game without rules? / V.V. Putin / / Znamya. - October 24, 2014.

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

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

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

5. Systemic history of international relations: 4 volumes / Ed. d.p.n., prof. A. D. Bogaturova. -V.1.- M.: 2000. - 325s.-1-t

6. Fukuyama, F. The end of history? / F. Fukuyama// Questions of Philosophy. - 1990. - No. 3. - S. 56-74.

7. Fukuyama, Francis. The end of history and the last man / F. Fukuyama; per. from English. M. B.

Levin. - M.: ACT, 2007. - 347p.

8. Huntington, S. Clash of civilizations / S. Hanginton / / Polis. - 1994. - N°1. - P.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. Clash of Civilizations / S. Hanginton. - M.: ACT, 2003. - 351s.

1. Putin, V.V. T he World Order: the new rules or a game without rules? /V.V. Putin// Znamya.- 2014.-October 24.

2. Kortunov, S.V. The collapse of the Westphalian system and the establishment of a new world order / S.V. Kortunov // Mirovaya politika.- M .: GU HSE, 2007. - P. 45-63.

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

5. The System History of International Relations: 4 v. /Ed. Doctor of Science in Politics, Professor A. A. Bogaturova. -V.1.- M., 2000. - 325p.-1-v.

6. Fukuyama, F. The End of History? / F. Fukuyama // Voprosi filosofii. - 1990. - # 3. - P. 56-74.

7Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man / F. Fukuyama; translated from English by M.B. Levin. - M .: AST, 2007. - 347s p.

8. Huntington, S. The Clash of Civilizations / S. Huntington // Polis. -1994. - #1.-P.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. The Clash of Civilizations / S. Huntington. - M.: AST, 2003. - 351p.

The evolution of the system of international relations and its features at the present stage

Key words: Evolution; system of international relations; Westphalian system; Vienna system; Versailles-Washington system; Yalta-Potsdam system; Belovezhskaya system.

The article examines the process of transformation and evolution of the systems of international relations that have developed in different periods from historical and political positions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis and identification of the features of the Westphalian, Vienna, Versailles-Washington, Yalta-Potsdam systems. New in the research plan is the selection in the article since 1991 of the Belovezhskaya system of international relations and its characteristics. The author also draws a conclusion about the formation at the present stage of a new system of international relations based on the ideas, proposals, values ​​expressed by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi on October 24, 2014

The article concludes that today there is a contradictory process of transformation of the unipolar world into a new multipolar system of international relations.

The evolution of international relations and its specifics at the present period

Keywords: Evolution, international relations system, the Westphalia system, the Vienna system, the Versailles-Washington system, the Yalta-Potsdam system, the Belovezhsk system.

NOMAI DONISHGOH* SCIENTIFIC NOTES*

The paper reviews the process of transformation, evolution happened in different periods, the system of international relations from historical and political views. Particular attention is paid to the analysis and identification of the Westphalia, the Vienna, the Versailles-Washington, the Yalta-Potsdam systems features. The new aspect of the research distinguishes the Belovezhsk system of international relations started in 1991 and its characteristics. The author also makes a conclusion about the development of a new system of international relations at the present stage on the basis of ideas, proposals, values ​​expressed by the President of Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Sochi, October 24, 2014. The paper draws a conclusion that today the controversial process of transformation of the unipolar world has changed into a new multipolar system of international relations.

Krainov Grigory Nikandrovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Political Science, History, Social Technologies, Moscow State University of Communications, (MIIT), Moscow (Russia - Moscow), E-mail: [email protected]

Information about the

Krainov Grigoriy Nikandrovich, Doctor of History, Political Science, History, Social Technologies, Moscow State University of Communication Means (MSUCM), (Russia, Moscow), E-mail: [email protected]

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations that emerged after the Second World War was part of the Westphalian model of the world, based on the primacy of the sovereignty of the nation state. This system was enshrined in the Helsinki final act 1975, who approved the principle of the inviolability of the state borders that have developed in Europe.

An exceptionally positive feature of the Yalta-Potsdam order was a high degree of controllability of international processes.

The system was based on the coordination of the opinions of the two superpowers, which were at the same time the leaders of the largest military-political blocs: NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO). Block discipline guaranteed the execution of the decisions taken by the leaders by the rest of the members of these organizations. Exceptions were extremely rare. For example, for the Warsaw Pact, 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. The solution of economic and social problems in most of these countries, and often the strength of the positions of power 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 towards them.

The state of confrontation in which the United States and the USSR, NATO and the Warsaw Pact 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 pose 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 the ideological confrontation. The geopolitical rivalry between the USSR and the USA was only an outward expression of the confrontation between different systems of social and ethical values. On the one hand - the ideals of equality, social justice, collectivism, the priority of non-material values; on the other - freedom, competition, individualism, material consumption.

Ideological polarization determined the intransigence of the parties, made it impossible for them to abandon their strategic orientation towards an absolute victory over the bearers of an antagonistic ideology, over the opposite social and political system.

The outcome of this global confrontation is known. Without going into details, we note that he was not uncontested. The main role in the defeat and collapse of the USSR was played by the so-called human factor. Authoritative political scientists S.V. Kortunov and A.I. Utkin, having analyzed the causes of what happened, independently came to the conclusion that the transition of the USSR to an open society and a law-based state could have been carried out without the collapse of the country, if not for a number of gross miscalculations admitted 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 the positions achieved as a result of victory in World War II and the destruction of its 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 the process of formation. The delay is explained by the fact that the controllability of world processes was lost: the countries that were previously in the sphere of Soviet influence were not for some time in an uncontrolled state; countries in the US sphere of influence, in the absence of a common enemy, began to act more independently; “fragmentation of the world” developed, expressed in the activation of separatist movements, ethnic and confessional conflicts; in international relations, the importance of force has grown.

The situation in the world 20 years after the collapse of the USSR and the Yalta-Potsdam system does not give grounds 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, many factors influence the formation of a new system of international relations. We list only the most important ones:

First, globalization. It is expressed in the internationalization of the economy, the expansion of the flow of information, capital, the people themselves around the world with increasingly transparent 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 controversial process that has negative consequences, stimulating states to take isolationist measures;

secondly, the growth of global problems, the solution of which requires the combined efforts of the world community. In particular, today everything greater value for mankind, they acquire problems associated with climate anomalies on the planet;

thirdly, the rise and growth of the role in the 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 cannot now 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 the global society into the world of wealth and stability (“golden billion”) and the world of poverty, instability, conflicts. Between these world poles, or, as they say - "North" and "South", the confrontation is growing. This feeds radical movements and is one of the sources of international terrorism. The "South" wants to restore justice, and for the sake of it, the disadvantaged masses can support any "al-Qaeda", any tyrant.

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

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

As a result of studying the chapter, the student must:

know

• modern paradigm of international relations;
• the specifics of the current stage of functioning and development of the system of international relations;

be able to

• determine the role and place of specific actors in the system of international relations;
• identify trends in the functioning of the system of international relations and cause-and-effect relationships of specific processes in this area;

own

• the methodology of multivariate forecasting of processes in the sphere of international relations in modern conditions;
• skills in analyzing international relations in a particular region of the world.

The main patterns of the formation of a new system of international relations

To date, disputes regarding the new world order that emerged after the end of the Cold War - the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, the leaders of the socialist and capitalist systems, have not subsided. There is a dynamic and full of contradictions in the formation of a new system of international relations.

Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, speaking to representatives of the Russian diplomatic corps, noted: “International relations are constantly becoming more complicated, today we cannot assess them as balanced and stable, on the contrary, elements of tension and uncertainty are growing, and trust, openness remain, unfortunately, often unclaimed .

The lack of new development models against the background of the erosion of the leadership of traditional economic locomotives (such as the US, EU, Japan) leads to a slowdown in global development. The struggle for access to resources is intensifying, provoking anomalous fluctuations in commodity and energy markets. The multi-vector nature of world development, the internal socio-economic troubles and problems in developed economies that have worsened as a result of the crisis weaken the dominance of the so-called historical West.

At the expense of the newly independent states of Asia and Africa, the number of neutral countries increased, many of which made up the Non-Aligned Movement (for more details, see Chapter 5). At the same time, the rivalry of the opposing blocs in the third world intensified, which stimulated the emergence of regional conflicts.

The Third World is a term of political science introduced in the second half of the 20th century to refer to countries that did not directly participate in the Cold War and its accompanying arms race. The Third World was an arena of rivalry between the warring parties, the USA and the USSR.

At the same time, there is also a directly opposite point of view that during the years of the Cold War, the real system of international relations according to the so-called M. Kaplan scheme (see paragraph 1.2) changed between rigid and free bipolar models. In the 1950s the development trend was rather in the direction of a rigid bipolar system, since the opposing superpowers sought to draw as many countries as possible into the orbit of their influence, and the number of neutral states was small. In particular, the confrontation between the US and the USSR actually paralyzed the activities of the UN. The United States, having a majority vote in the UN General Assembly, used it as an obedient voting mechanism, to which the USSR could only oppose its right of veto in the Security Council. As a result, the UN could not play the role assigned to it.

Expert opinion

Bipolar world - a political science term denoting the bipolar structure of world political forces. The term reflects the tough power confrontation in the world that has developed after

World War II, when the United States took the leading place among the Western countries, and among the socialist countries - the USSR. According to Henry Kissinger (No Kissinger), an American diplomat and international affairs expert, the world can be unipolar (having hegemony), bipolar, or in chaos. The world is currently undergoing a transformation from a unipolar (with US hegemony) to a multipolar model.

This ambiguous perception of the world order is reflected in official Russian documents. The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation) 1 states that Russia has regained the ability to increase its competitiveness and defend national interests as a key subject in the emerging multipolar international relations. The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation) states: "The tendency towards the creation of a unipolar structure of the world under the economic and military dominance of the United States is increasing."

After the collapse of the USSR and the socialist system, the United States (monopoly or with allies) did not remain the only world dominant. In the 1990s other centers of international attraction have also emerged: the states of the European Union, Japan, India, China, the states of the Asia-Pacific region, and Brazil. Proponents of the no-no-centric system approach proceed from the fact that Russia, as a matter of course, is assigned the place of one of such centers of powerful "political gravity".

European Union (European Union, EU)- political and economic association of 28 European states, aimed at regional integration. Legally secured by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (which entered into force on November 1, 1993) on the principles of the European Communities. The EU includes: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France, UK, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Cyprus,

Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia.

Domestic scientists note that if the key factor that determined the evolution of the system of international relations throughout its history was interstate conflict interaction within the framework of stable confrontational axes, then by the 1990s. there are prerequisites for the transition of the system to a different qualitative state. It is characterized not only by the breaking of the global confrontational axis, but also by the gradual formation of stable axes of cooperation between the leading countries of the world. As a result, an informal subsystem of developed states appears in the form of a world economic complex, the core of which was the G8 of leading countries, which objectively turned into a control center that regulates the process of establishing a system of international relations.

• Meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives of Russia. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/transcripts/15902 (date of access: 02/27/2015).
• National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 (approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2009 No. 537).
• The concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Part II, and. 5.
• Garusova L. II. US Foreign Policy: Main Trends and Directions (1990-2000-s). Vladivostok: Publishing House of VGUES, 2004. S. 43-44.