Modern theories of international relationships
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №8 - 2016
Berdykenova Altynai, Kazak American Free University, Kazakhstan
Gavrilova Yuliya, Kazak American Free University, Kazakhstan
There are many classifications of current
trends in the science of international relationships, which can be explained by
differences in the criteria used by various authors.
So, some of them are based on the
geographical criteria, separating the Anglo-Saxon concept, the Soviet and the
Chinese understanding of international relationships, as well as their approach
to the authors` study , representing "the third world".
Others base their typology on the basis of
the degree of generality of the theories, distinguishing, for example, global
explicative theory (such as political realism and philosophy of history), and
specific hypotheses and methods (which include behaviorist school). Within the
framework of this typology of Swiss author Philip Bryar attributes to the
general theory of political realism, historical sociology and the
Marxist-Leninist concept of international relationships. With regard to the
particular theories, some of them referred to the theory of international
actors (Bhagat Korányi); theory of interaction within international
systems (George Modelski, Samir Amin, Karl Kaiser); strategy theory, conflict
and peace studies (Lucien Poirier, David Singer, Johan Galtung); integration
theory (Amitai Etzioni, Karl Deutsch) theory of international organizations
(Inis Claude, Jean Siotis, Ernst Haas).
Still others believe that the main line of
the watershed is a technique used by various researchers, and, from this perspective,
focuses on the controversy between the traditional and "scientific" approaches
to the analysis of international relationships.
The fourth is based on the allocation of
the central issues specific to a particular theory, highlighting the main and
crucial line in the development of science [1, p. 167].
Finally, the fifth is based on complex
criteria. For example, a Canadian scientist Bhagat Korányi builds a
typology of theories of international relationships on the basis of the methods
used by them (the "classical" and "contemporary") and the
conceptual vision of the world ("liberal-pluralist" and
"materialistic-structuralist"). As a result, it highlights areas such
as political realism (Morgenthau, Aron; X. The Ball), behaviorism (D. Singer,
M. Kaplan), classical Marxism (Marx, Engels, Lenin ) and neo-Marxism (or
"dependency" school: I. Vallersteyn; S. Amin, A. Frank, F. Cardoso).
Similarly, Daniel stops Kolyar attention to the classical theory of
"natural states" (i.e. political realism); the theory of "international
community" (or political idealism); Marxist ideologies and its many
interpretations; doctrinal Anglo-Saxon current, as well as the French school of
international relationships. Marcel Merle believes that the main trends in
modern science of international relationships presented traditionalists - the
heirs of the classical school (Hans Morgenthau, Stanley Hoffmann, Henry
Kissinger); Anglo-Saxon sociological concepts of behaviorism and functionalism
(Robert Cox, David Singer, Morton Kaplan, David Easton); Marxist and
neo-Marxist (Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, Samir Amin) currents.
Examples of the various classifications of
modern theories of international relationships could be continued. It is,
however, noted at least three important facts. Firstly, any of these
classifications is conditional and is not able to exhaust the variety of
theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches to the analysis of
international relationships. Secondly, the diversity does not mean that current
theories have managed to overcome their "kinship" with the above
discussed three major paradigms. Finally, in the third place, in spite of still
occur today and the opposite opinion, there is every reason to speak about the outlined
synthesis and mutual enrichment, mutual "compromise" between
previously irreconcilable directions.
Based on the foregoing, we restrict short
consideration of such areas (and their variants), as a political idealism and
political realism, modernism, neo-Marxism and transnationalism.
Heritage Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes,
de Vattel and Clausewitz, on the one hand, Vitoria, Grotius, Kant, - on the
other hand, has found its direct reflection in that large scientific debate
that has arisen in the United States in the period between the two world wars,
a discussion between realists and idealists.
Idealism in the modern science of
international relationships and has a closer ideological and theoretical
sources, which serve utopian socialism, liberalism and pacifism of the XIX
century. His basic premise - the belief in the necessity and possibility to end
the wars and armed conflicts between states through regulation and
democratization of international relationships, the spread on their standards
of morality and justice. According to this direction, the international
community of democratic states, with the support and pressure from public
opinion, it is able to settle arising between its members for conflicts
peacefully, methods of legal regulation, to increase the number and role of
international organizations that contribute to the expansion of mutually
beneficial cooperation and exchange. One of its priority themes - is the
creation of a collective security system based on voluntary disarmament and mutual
rejection of war as a foreign policy tool. In political practice idealism
embodied in the developed after the First World War, US President Woodrow
Wilson's League of Nations Programme [2, p. 218], in the Kellogg-Briand Pact
(1928), providing for the rejection of the use of force in international
relationships, as well as in the doctrine Staymson (1932), by which the United
States refuse to diplomatic recognition of any change, if it is achieved by
force. In the postwar years the idealistic tradition found expression in
certain activities such as the American politicians, Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski (representing, however,
not only political, but also the academic elite of the country), President
Jimmy Carter (1976-1980) and President George W. Bush (1988-1992). In the scientific
literature it has been presented, in particular, a book such American authors
as Richard Clarke and LB Dream "Achieving peace through world law."
The book proposed project phased disarmament and the creation of a collective
security system for the entire world for the period 1960-1980. The main tool to
overcome wars and achieve perpetual peace among nations must become a world
government, led by the UN and acting on the basis of an elaborate world
constitution. Similar ideas are expressed in a number of works by European
authors. The idea of a world government, and expressed in the papal
encyclicals: John XXIII - «Pacern in terris» from 04.16.63, Paul VI -
«Populorum progressio» from 03.26.67, and John Paul II - on 12/02/80, which
today stands for the creation of "political power, endowed with universal
Thus, the idealistic paradigm, accompanied
the history of international relationships for centuries, retains a certain
influence on the minds and in our days. Moreover, it can be said that in recent
years its influence on some aspects of theoretical analysis and forecasting in
international relationships even increased, becoming the basis for practical
steps to be taken by the international community for the democratization and
humanization of these relationships, as well as attempts to form a new,
consciously regulated world order and the common interest of all mankind.
At the same time it should be noted that
idealism for a long time (and in some respects - and to this day) was
considered lost all influence and in any case - is hopelessly behind the modern
requirements. Indeed, the underlying approach proved deeply undermined as a
result of growing tension in Europe 30-s, the aggressive policy of fascism and
the collapse of the League of Nations, the outbreak of the world conflict of
1939-1945. and the "cold war" in the coming years. The result has
been a revival on American soil of the European classical tradition with its
inherent extension to the fore in the analysis of international relationships
of such concepts as "power" and "balance of power",
"national interest" and "conflict".
Political realism is not only subjected to
devastating criticism idealism - pointing in particular to the fact that the
idealistic illusions of statesmen of the time in no small measure contributed
to the outbreak of the Second World War - but offered enough coherent theory.
Its most well-known representatives - Reinhold Niebuhr, Frederick Schuman,
George Kennan, George Schwarzenegger, Kenneth Thompson, Henry Kissinger, Edward
Carr, Arnold Wolfers, etc. - Long determined the way the science of
international relationships. The undisputed leader of this trend began to Hans
Morgenthau and Raymond Aron [3, p. 95].
Morgenthau`s work "Political relationships
between nations. The struggle for power ", whose first edition was published
in 1948, became a kind of" bible "for many generations of students of
political science in the United States itself, and in other Western countries.
From the point of view of Mr. Morgenthau's international relationships are an
arena of acute confrontation between states. At the heart of all international
activities of the past is their desire to increase their power or strength
(power) and a decrease in the power of others. The term "power" is understood
in the broadest sense: as a military and economic power of the state and a
guarantee of the highest security and prosperity, fame and prestige, the
ability to spread its ideological and spiritual values. The two main ways in
which the state secures its power, while two complementary aspects of its
foreign policy - it's military strategy and diplomacy. The first of these is
treated in the spirit of Clausewitz as a continuation of politics by violent
means. Diplomacy, on the contrary, there are peaceful struggle for power. In
the modern era, says Hans Morgenthau, states express their need for power in
terms of "national interest." The result of the desire of each state
to the maximum satisfaction of its national interests is to establish in the
world arena a certain equilibrium (balance) of power (force), which is the only
realistic way to achieve and maintain peace. Actually, the state of the world -
this is the state of the balance of power between states.
According to Morgenthau, there are two
factors, which are able to retain the desire of power in any part of - it is
international law and morality. However, too much trust in them in an effort to
secure peace between states - would be to indulge in the illusions of
idealistic school unforgivable. The problem of war and peace has no chance to
solve by means of the collective security mechanisms or by the UN [4, p. 167].
Utopian projects, and the harmonization of national interests by creating a
global community, or the world state. The only way to hope to avoid a global
nuclear war - update diplomacy.
In his concept Morgenthau comes from the
six principles of political realism, which he proves at the very beginning of
his book. In summary, they are ironed follows.
1. Policy, as well as society as a whole is
controlled by objective laws that are rooted in eternal and unchanging human
nature. Therefore, it is possible to create a rational theory that is able to reflect
these laws - even though only relatively and partially. This theory makes it
possible to separate objective truth in international politics from the
subjective judgments about it.
2. The main indicator of political realism
- "the concept of interest, expressed in terms of power." It provides
the link between the mind, seeking to understand international politics, and
the facts, subject knowledge. It allows us to understand politics as an
independent sphere of human activity, not reducible to the ethical, aesthetic,
economic and religious spheres. Thus said the concept allows to avoid two
mistakes. First, judgments about the interest a politician based on motives
rather than on the basis of his behavior. And, secondly, the elimination of
interest politician of his ideological or moral preference, not because of his
Political realism consists not only of
theoretical, but also a normative element: he insists on the need for sound
policies. Rational policy - it is the right policy, because it minimizes risks
and maximizes benefits. At the same time, rationality policy depends on its
moral and practical purposes.
3. The content of "interest, expressed
in terms of power," the concept is not the same. It depends on the
political and cultural context in which the formation of the international
policy of the state. This also applies to "force" the concepts of
(power) and the "balance of power" and to this original concept that
refers to the main character of international politics as a "nation-state".
Political realism differs from all other
theoretical schools primarily in the fundamental question of how to change the
world today. He is convinced that such a change can be effected only through
the skillful use of the objective laws which operated in the past and will act
in the future, but not by subordinating political reality of some abstract
ideal that refuses to acknowledge such laws.
4. Political realism recognizes the moral
significance of political action. But at the same time he is aware of the existence
of an imminent conflict between the moral imperative and the requirements of
successful political action. The main moral requirements can not be applied to
the activities of the state as an abstract and universal norms. They should be
considered in the specific circumstances of place and time. State can not say:
"Let the world will perish, but justice must prevail!". It can not
afford to suicide. Therefore, the highest moral virtue in international
politics - is moderation and caution.
5. Political realism refuses to identify
the moral aspirations of a nation with the universal moral norms. One thing -
to know that nations obey the moral law in its policy, and quite another - to
claim to know what is good and what is bad in international relationships.
6. The theory of political realism is based
on a pluralistic conception of human nature. Real people - that "economic
man" and "a moral person" and "a religious person" and
so only a "political person" is like an animal, because he has no
"moral loose"... Only the "moral man" - a fool, because he
is deprived of care. Only "a religious person" can only be a saint, because
he has no earthly desires.
Recognizing this, the political realism
advocated relative autonomy of these issues and insists on the fact that the
knowledge of each of them requires abstraction from the others and comes in its
own terms [5, p. 162].
As we shall see from what follows, not all
of the above principles set the founder of the theory of political realism
Morgenthau, unconditionally shared by other supporters - and, even more so, opponents
- in this direction. At the same time its conceptual harmony, the desire to
build on the objective laws of social development, the pursuit of impartial and
rigorous analysis of international reality, different from the abstract ideals
and based on these barren and dangerous illusions - all contributed to the
expansion of the influence and authority of political realism as in the
academic world, and in the circles of government officials in various countries.
However, political realism does not become
completely dominant paradigm in the science of international relationships.
Turning it into the central unit, cementing the beginning of some kind of
unified theory from the outset prevented its serious shortcomings.
The fact is that, based on the understanding
of international relationships as a "state of nature" a power
struggle for the possession of power, political realism, in fact, brings this
relationships hip to the interstate, which greatly impoverishes their
understanding. Moreover, internal and external policy of the state in the interpretation
of the political realists appear to be unrelated to each other, and the states
themselves - as a kind of interchangeable mechanical body, with identical
reactions to external influences. The only difference is that some states are
strong, while others - weak. No wonder one of the most influential supporters
of political realism A. Wolfers built a picture of international relationships
by comparing the interaction of states on the world scene with a clash of balls
on a billiard table. The absolutization of the role of power and
underestimation of the importance of other factors - such as such as cultural
values, socio-cultural reality, etc. - significantly impoverishes the analysis
of international relationships, reduces the degree of its reliability. This is
especially true that the contents of the key to political realism theory
concepts as "power" and "national interest", it remains
quite vague, giving rise to discussions and multi-valued interpretation.
Finally, in its desire to build on the eternal and immutable objective laws of
international cooperation political realism it has become, in essence, a hostage
of his own approach. They were not considered very important trends and changes
have occurred, which increasingly determine the nature of modern international
relationships from those that dominated the international scene until the beginning
of the XX century. At the same time it has been lost yet another circumstance:
the fact that these changes require, in addition to traditional and new methods
and means of scientific analysis of international relationships. All this led
to criticism of political realism address by the adherents of other approaches,
and, above all, by the representatives of the so-called modernist trend and the
diverse theories of interdependence and integration. It is no exaggeration to
say that this debate is actually accompanied the theory of political realism,
with its first steps, contributed to a growing awareness of the need to supplement
the political realities of the sociological analysis of international.
Representatives of "modernism" or
"scientific" analysis of trends in international relationships, often
without affecting the basic postulates of political realism was subjected to
sharp criticism of his commitment to the traditional methods, based mainly on
intuition and theoretical interpretation. The controversy between
"modernists" and "traditionalists" reaches a particular intensity,
starting with the 60-ies., Received the title of "the new great
controversy " in the scientific literature. The source of the dispute was
the insistence of a number of the new generation of researchers (Quincy Wright,
Morton Kaplan, Karl Deutsch, David Singer, Kalevi Canvas, Ernst Haas, and many
others.) To overcome the shortcomings of the classical approach and make the
study of international relationships a truly scientific status. Hence the
increased attention to the use of tools of mathematics, formalization, to
modeling, data collection and processing, to the empirical verification of the
results, as well as other research procedures borrowed from the exact sciences
and contrasts the traditional methods based on the researcher's intuition,
reasoning by analogy, etc.. This approach, which arose in the United States,
research touched not only international relationships, but also in other
spheres of social reality, appearing penetration expression in the social sciences
a broader trend of positivism, emerged on European soil in the XIX century.
Indeed, even Saint-Simon and Augusta Comte
attempted to apply to the study of social phenomena rigorous scientific
methods. The presence of solid empirical tradition, techniques already proven
in such disciplines as sociology or psychology, the appropriate technical base,
giving researchers new tools of analysis, led by American scientists, starting
with K. Wright, to a desire to use all the luggage in the study of
international relationships. This desire was accompanied by the rejection of a
priori judgments about the impact of various factors on the nature of
international relationships, as a denial of any "metaphysical
prejudices", and conclusions, based, like Marxism, on the deterministic
hypothesis [6, p. 25]. However, as stressed by M. Merle, this approach does not
mean that you can do without a global explanatory hypotheses. Study the natural
phenomena has developed two opposing models which oscillate between and
specialists in the social sciences. On the one hand, it's Darwin's theory of
ruthless struggle species and the law of natural selection and its Marxist
interpretation. On the other - the organic philosophy of Herbert Spencer, which
is based on the concept of permanence and stability of biological and social
phenomena. Positivism in the US went to the second path - the path of
assimilation of society living organism whose life is based on the differentiation
and coordination of its various functions. From this perspective, the study of
international relationships, as well as any other type of public relationships,
must begin with an analysis of the functions performed by the participants,
with the transition and then to the study of interactions between their
vehicles and finally - to the problems associated with the adaptation of the
social organism to their surroundings. The organicism heritage, says M. Merle,
there are two currents. One of them focuses on the behavior of actors and the
other - the articulation of different types of such behavior. Accordingly, the
first gave rise to behaviorism, and the second - functionalism and systematic approach
to the science of international relationships.
Appearing response to the shortcomings of
traditional methods for the study of international relationships applied to the
theory of political realism, modernism did not however homogeneous or over - neither
in theory nor in terms of methodology. Common is for him, mostly interdisciplinary
approach, commitment, commitment to the application of rigorous scientific
methods and procedures, to increase the number of verifiable empirical data.
Its drawbacks are the actual denial of the specificity of international relationships,
the fragmentation of specific research facilities that contribute to the virtual
absence of a complete picture of international relationships, the inability to
avoid subjectivity. Nevertheless, many adherents of the modernist research directions
were very fruitful and enriching science not only new methods, but also very
important conclusions drawn from them. It is important to note the fact that
they opened up the prospect of micro sociological paradigm in the study of
If the controversy between supporters of
political realism and modernism concerned mainly research methods in international
relationships, representatives of transnationalism (Robert O. Kooheyn, Joseph
Nye), integration theories (David Mitrani) and interdependence (Ernst Haas,
David Mours) criticized themselves conceptual the foundations of the classical
school. In the center of the new "great controversy " that broke out
in the late '60s -. The beginning of the 70s, was the state's role as a
participant in international relationships, the importance of the national
interest and effort to understand the essence of what is happening on the world
Supporters of various theoretical currents,
which can be conditionally called "transnatsionalists", put forward
the general idea that the political realism and his usual statist paradigm does
not correspond to the character and the main trends of international
relationships and should therefore be discarded. International relationships go
far beyond the interstate interactions, based on national interests and power
struggles. The state, as an international actor, loses its monopoly. In addition
to states, international relationships are involved individuals, businesses, organizations,
and other non-state entities. The diversity of participants, types of (cultural
and scientific cooperation, economic exchanges, etc.) and "channels"
(partnerships between universities, religious organizations, fraternities and
associations, etc.), the interaction between them is displaced from the center
of the state of international relationships contribute to the transformation of
such communication from the "international" (i.e., interstate, if you remember the
etymological meaning of the term) in the "trans-national" (i.e., in addition to exercise, and without the
participation of the States). "The rejection of the prevailing
intergovernmental approach and the desire to go beyond the intergovernmental
interactions lead us to think in terms of transnational relationships", -
wrote in the preface to his book "Transnational relationships and World
Politics", American scientists J. Nye and R. Kooheyn.
Revolutionary changes in the technology of
communications and transport, transformation of the situation on the world
markets, the growth in the number and value of multinational corporations
stimulated the emergence of new trends in the global arena. Predominant among
them are: faster growth of world trade as compared to world production, the
penetration of the processes of modernization, urbanization and the development
of communication media in developing countries, strengthen the international
role of small states and private actors, finally, the reduction of
possibilities of the great powers to control the environment. Generalizing the
consequence and the expression of all these processes is the increasing interdependence
of the world and the relative decrease in the role of force in international
relationships. Proponents of transnationalism often tend to consider the scope
of transnational relationships as a kind of international society, which are
applicable to the analysis of the same techniques that allow us to understand
and explain the processes that take place in any public body. Thus, in essence,
we are talking about macrosociological paradigm in the approach to the study of
international relationships [7, p. 164].
Transnationalism contributed to the
realization of a number of new developments in international relationships, so
many of the provisions of this trend continue to develop his supporters and in
the 90s. At the same time, it has left its imprint his unmistakable ideological
affinity with classical idealism with its inherent tendencies to overestimate
the actual value of the observed trends in the nature of international
relationships. Notable is also some similarity of the provisions put forward by
transnationalism, with a number of provisions that defends neo-Marxist trend in
the science of international relationships.
Representatives of the neo-Marxist (Paul
Baran, Paul Sweezy, Samir Amin, Ardzhiri Immanyuel, Immanuel Wallerstein etc.)
- Current as inhomogeneous as transnationalism, also incorporates the idea of
the integrity of the international community and a certain utopianism in the
assessment of its future. However, the starting point and the basis of their conceptual
constructions favor the idea of asymmetry interdependence of the modern world
and more - depending on the actual cost of the underdeveloped countries of the
industrialized countries, the exploitation and plundering of the first last.
Based on some of the theses of classical Marxism, neo-Marxists are the space of
international relationships in the form of a global empire, the periphery of
which is under the oppression of the center, and after gaining earlier colonial
countries of its political independence. This manifests itself in the
inequality of economic exchanges and uneven development.
For example, the "center", within
which about 80% of the world's economic transactions depends in its development
of raw materials and resources of the "periphery". In turn, the
periphery countries are consumers of industrial and other products produced
outside them. Thus, they become dependent on the center, becoming victims of
unequal economic exchange, fluctuations in world prices for raw materials and
economic aid from the developed countries. Therefore, in the end,
"economic growth, based on integration into the world market, there is a
development of underdevelopment" [8, p. 106].
In the seventies, a similar approach to the
consideration of international relationships has become the countries of "the
third world" based on the idea of the need to establish a new world
economic order. Under pressure from these countries make up the majority of
countries - the United Nations Member States, the UN General Assembly in April
1974 adopted a declaration and program of action, and in December of the same
year - the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
Thus, each of the theoretical currents has
its strengths and its weaknesses, each reflects certain aspects of reality and
finds a particular expression in the practice of international relationships.
The controversy between them contributed to their mutual enrichment, and,
consequently, the enrichment of the science of international relationships as a
whole. At the same time, one can not deny that this controversy has not
convinced the scientific community in the superiority of any one over the
other, they do not lead, and to their synthesis. Both these conclusions can be
illustrated by neorealizma concept.
The term itself reflects the desire of a
number of American scientists (Kenneth Waltz, Robert Gilpin, Joseph Greyko et
al.) To preserve the advantages of the classical tradition and at the same time
- to its enrichment, taking into account the new international realities and
achievements of other theoretical currents. It is significant that one of the
most long-standing supporters of transnationalism, Kooheyn in the 80s. He comes
to the conclusion that the central concepts of political realism
"force", "national interest", rational behavior, and others
-. are an important tool and condition for a fruitful analysis of international
relationships. On the other hand, K. Waltz says enrichment needs a realistic
approach by the scientific rigor of the data and the empirical verifiability of
conclusions, which advocates the need for a traditional look, as a rule,
The emergence of the school of neo-realism
in international relationships associated with the publication of the book K.
Waltz "Theory of International Politics", the first edition of which
was published in 1979. Defending the main provisions of political realism (
"natural state" of international relationships, rationality in the
actions of the main actors, the national interest as their main motive, the
desire to possess the power), the author, at the same time exposes its
predecessors criticized for the failure of attempts to develop a theory of
international politics as an autonomous discipline. Hans Morgenthau, he
criticizes for the identification of foreign policy, international politics,
and Raymond Aron - for his skepticism about the possibility of establishing
international relationships as an independent theory [9, p. 114].
Insisting that any theory of international
relationships should be based not on the particulars, and integrity of the
world, taking its starting point for the existence of a global system, rather
than states, which are its elements, Waltz makes a step towards convergence and
This system is due to the nature of
international relationships, according to K. Waltz, not interacting actors are
not inherent basic features (related to geographical location, demographic
potential, socio-cultural characteristics and the like), and the properties of
the structure of the international system. (In this regard, neorealism
frequently qualify as structural realism or simply structuralism.) As a consequence
of the interaction of international actors, the structure of the international
system at the same time can not be reduced to the simple sum of these interactions,
and is an independent phenomenon, able to impose on States certain restrictions,
or, on the contrary, offer them opportunities on the world stage.
It should be emphasized that, according to
the neo-realism, the structural properties of the international system does not
actually depend on any efforts by small and medium-sized states, as a result of
interactions between the great powers. This means that it is peculiar to them
and "natural state" of international relationships. As for the
interaction between the great powers and other states, then they can not be
characterized as an anarchist, because acquire other forms, which are often
dependent on the will of the great powers.
One of the followers of structuralism,
Barry Bazan, developed its main provisions for regional systems, which he regards
as the intermediate between the global and the international state system. The
most important feature of regional systems is, in his view, the security complex.
The idea is that the neighboring states are so closely connected with each
other in matters of security, that the national security of one of them can not
be separated from national security of others. The basis of the structure of
any of the regional subsystem consists of two factors, discussed in detail by
the author: the distribution of opportunities between existing actors and the
relationships hip of friendliness
or hostility between them. At the same time as it is, and the other shows B.
Bazan, subject to manipulation by the great powers. Using the proposed methodology,
thus, the Danish researcher M. Mozaffari made it the basis of analysis of the
structural changes that have occurred in the Persian Gulf as a result of the
Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and the subsequent defeat of Iraq by Allied
(and in essence - American) troops. As a result, he concluded that the
operationally of structuralism, its advantages compared to other theoretical
directions. At the same time shows Mozaffari and weaknesses inherent in
neo-realism, of which he calls the position of the eternity and immutability of
the characteristics of the international system as its "natural
state", the balance of power as a way to stabilize its inherent static. Actually,
as emphasized by other authors, the revival of realism as a theoretical
direction is much smaller due to its own advantages, than heterogeneity and
weakness of any other theory. A desire to maintain maximum continuity with the
classical school means that the destiny of neorealism is most characteristic of
her shortcomings [10, p. 92]. Even more severe sentence is passed by French
authors M. C. Smuts and B. Badie, according to which the theory of
international relationships, while remaining a prisoner of West-approach, were
unable to reflect the radical changes taking place in the world system, as well
as "to predict any accelerated decolonization in the post-war period, no
outbreaks of religious fundamentalism or the end of the Cold War or the
collapse of the Soviet empire. In short, anything that relates to the sinful
1. Современные буржуазные теории
международных отношений. Критический анализ. — М., 1976. – 497 с.
2. Международные отношения как объект
изучения. — М., 1993. – 472 c.
3. Цыганков П.А. Теория международных
отношений. - М., 2002. – 695 с.
4. Аберкромби Н., Хилл С., Тернер Б.С..
Социологический словарь. - Казань, 1997. – 918 c.
5. Сандерс Д. Международные отношения:
неореализм и неолиберализм // Политическая наука: новые направления - М., 1999.
– 216 c.
6. Богатуров А.Д., Косолапов Н.А.,
Хрусталев И.А. Очерки теории и политического анализа международных отношений.
М., 2002. – 418 c.
7. Валлерстайн И. Анализ мировых систем и
ситуация в современном мире. СПб, 2001. – 461 c.
8. Лебедева М.М. Проблемы развития
мировой политики // Полис. -2004. - №5 (82). –- С. 106-114.
9. Мельвиль А.Ю. Еще раз о сравнительной
политологии и мировой политике // Полис. – 2004. - №5 (82). - С. 114-120.
10. Косолапов Н.А. Мировая политика как
явление и предмет науки (К дискуссии на страницах «Полиса» и «Международных
процессов» // Полис. - 2005. - №6 (90). - С. 92-110.
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №8 - 2016