Пособие по теории и истории международных отношений

Составитель Паймакова Е.А.

Москва 2007

Содержание

Введение………………………………………………………………………………3

Lesson 1. Continuity, Сhange, and Сycles in World Politics………………….5

Lesson 2. The Emergence of the Modern State System…………………………9

Lesson 3. How States Make Foreign Policy Decisions to Cope with International Circumstances…………………………………………………………………………14

Lesson 4. The Role of Leaders in Foreign Policy Decision Making……………20

Lesson 5. Great-Power Rivalries and Relations…………………………………27

Lesson 6. The Plight And Policy Posture Of The Less Developed Global

South……………………………………………………………………………………36

Lesson 7. Foreign Aid to the Global South…………………………………………41

Lesson 8. Universal and Regional Intergovernmental Organizations

(IGOs)………………………………………………………………………………………47

Lesson 9. Nongovernmental Actors on the World Stage……………………………53

Lesson 10. Religious Movements………………………………………………………61

Lesson 11. Trade and Monetary Issues in a Globalized Political

Economy …………………………………………………………………………………69

Lesson 12. World Demographic Patterns, Problems and Possibilities………………………………………………………………………………74

Lesson 13. The Ecological Security and Preservation of The Global

Commons …………………………………………………………………………………79

Lesson 14. A global village?……………………………………………………………87

Unit 1 continuity, change, and cycles in world politics

Every historical period is marked to some extent by change. Now, however, the pace of change seems more rapid and its consequences more profound than ever. To many observers, the cascade of events at the beginning of the twenty-first century implies a revolutionary restructuring of world politics. Numerous integrative trends point to that possibility. The countries of the world are drawing closer together in communications, ideas, and trade, as the integration of national economies has produced a globalized market, forming interdependent bonds between countries and cultures. Globalization is changing the way the world works. Likewise, disintegrative trends are shaking the globe and restructuring the way it operates. The end of stability imposed by the bipolar distribution of power between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies, the proliferation of conventional and unconventional weapons, global-environmental deterioration, and the resurgence of nationalism and ethnic conflict all portend a restructuring marked by disorder. The opposing forces of integration and disintegration point toward a transformation in world politics as extensive and important as the system-disrupting convulsions following World Wars I and II.

Distinguishing meaningful transformations (true historical watersheds) from ephemeral changes (those that gradually unfold with the passage of time but sometimes fail to last) is difficult. Transformations do not fall neatly into easily defined periods, signaling that one system has truly ended and a new one has begun. Still, major turning points in world politics usually have occurred at the end of major wars, which typically disrupt or destroy preexisting international arrangements. Last century, World Wars I and II stimulated fundamental breaks with the past, as each set in motion major transformations. The end of the Cold War was a historical breakpoint of no less epic significance. As U.S. President George Bush put it in 1992, the changes stimulated by the end of the Cold War were "of biblical proportions," providing countries an opportunity, for the first time since 1945, to rethink the premises underlying their interests,purposes, and priorities.

Despite all that is radically different in world politics, much remains the same. Indeed, "history usually makes a mockery of our hopes and expectations." Thus leaders must "question … the ways and areas in which the future is likely to resemble the past" (Jervis).

How can we determine when an existing pattern of relationships gives way to a new international system? Following Stanley Hoffmann we should assume that we have a new international system when we have a new answer to one of three questions: (1) What are the systems basic units? (e.g., states or transnational religious movements); (2) What are the predominant foreign policy goals that these units seek with respect to one another? (e.g., territorial conquest or material gain through trade); and (3) What can these units do to one another with their military and economic capabilities?

These criteria rnight lead us to conclude that a new system has emerged. First, new trade partnerships have been forged in Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim, and these trading blocs may behave as unitary, or independent, actors as they compete with one another. Moreover, international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization and the European Union, now sometimes flex their political muscles in contests with individual states; and transnational religious movements, such as Islamic fundamentalism, challenge the global system itself (a system of state and/or national actors, autonomous political units whose people perceive themselves as unified by a common language, culture, or ethnic identity). At the same time, some states have disintegrated into smaller units. The Soviet Union has fragmented into fractious political entities searching for national identity and autonomy. Other national units could disintegrate peacefully, like the former Czechoslovakia, or violently, like the former Yugoslavia.

Second, territorial conquest is no longer the predominant goal of many states’ foreign policies. Instead, their emphasis has shifted from traditional military methods of exercising influence to economic means. Meanwhile, the ideological contest between the democratic capitalism of the United States and the Marxist-Leninist communism of the Cold War-era Soviet Union no longer comprises the primary cleavage in international politics.

Third, the proliferation of weapons technology has profoundly altered the damage that states can inflict on one another. Great powers alone no longer control the world's most lethal weapons. Their economic well-being, however, is sometimes dependent on those with an increasing capacity to destroy.

The profound changes in units, goals, and capabilities of recent years have dramatically altered the ranking of states in the pecking orders that define the structure of international politics. Still, the hierarchies themselves endure. The economic hierarchy that divides the rich from the poor, the political hierarchy that separates the rulers from the ruled, the resource hierarchy that makes some suppliers and others dependents, and the military asymmetries that pit the strong against the weak all still shape the relations among states, as they have in the past. Similarly, the perpetuation of international anarchy in the absence of institutions to govern the globe, and chronic national insecurity continue to encourage preparations for war and the use of force without international mandate. Thus change and continuity coexist, with both forces simultaneously shaping contemporary world politics.

The interaction of constancy and change makes it difficult to predict whether the twenty-first century will bring a wholly new and different international system. What is clear is that this interaction will determine future relations among global actors. This, perhaps, explains why cycles so often appear to characterize world politics: Periodic sequences of events occur that resemble patterns in earlier periods. Because the emergent international system shares many characteristics with earlier periods, historically minded observers may experience deja vu – the illusion of having already experienced something actually being experienced for the first time.

The challenge, then, is to observe unfolding global realities objectively in order to describe and explain them accurately, and hence to understand their future impact. This requires that we understand how images of reality shape our expectations. It also requires a set of tools for analyzing the forces of constancy and change that affect our world and that of the future.

Exercises: