Formation of a new system of international relations. Features and ways of development of modern international relations Modern new system of international relations

The global scale and the radicality of changes in the political, economic, spiritual fields of life of the world community, in the field of military security, allow you to put forward the assumption of the formation of a new system international relationsother than those who functioned throughout the completed century, and in many ways starting with the classic Westphalian system.

In the global and domestic literature, a more or less sustainable approach to the systematization of international relations, depending on their content, the composition of the participants, driving forces and patterns. It is believed that the actual international (interstate) relations originated during the formation of national states on the relatively amorphous space of the Roman Empire. The point of reference is made by the completion of the "Thirty-year war" in Europe and the conclusion of the Westphalian world in 1648. Since then, the entire 350-year period of international cooperation is considered by many, especially Western researchers as the history of the Unified Westphalian system of international relations. The dominant subjects of this system are sovereign states. There is no higher arbiter in the system, so states are independent in conducting internal politicians Within its national borders and, in principle, equitable sovereignty implies non-interference in each other's affairs. Over time, States have developed a set of rules governing international relations based on these principles - international law.

Most scientists converge in the opinion that the main driving force of the Westphalian system of international relations was rivalry between states: Some sought to increase their influence, while others - prevent this. The collisions between states were determined by the fact that the national interests perceived as vital among the states entered into a conflict with the national interests of other states. The outcome of this rivalry is usually determined by the ratio of forces between the states or unions in which they entered into the implementation of their foreign policy goals. Establishment of equilibrium, or balance, meant a period of stable peaceful relations, the breakdown of the balance of forces ultimately led to war and restoring it in a new configuration reflecting the strengthening of the influence of some states at the expense of others. This system is for clarity and, of course, with a large proportion of simplification, compared with the movement of billiard balls. States face each other, forming changing configurations, and then move again in endless struggle for influence or safety. The main principle at the same time - its own benefit. The main criterion is power.

The Westphalian era (or system) of international relations is divided into several stages (or subsystems), combined by the general, indicated above by laws, but differing from each other features characteristic of a particular period of relations between states. Usually historians allocate several subsystems of the Westphalian system, which are often considered as independent: a system of mainly English-French rivalry in Europe and the struggle for the colonies in the XVII - XVIII centuries; The system of "European concert of Nations" or the Vienna Congress in the XIX century; more global geography of the Versailles-Washington system between the two world wars; Finally, the system cold War, or, by defining some scientists, Yalta-Potsdam. Obviously, in the second half of the 80s - early 90s of the XX century. In international relations, cardinal changes occurred that allow us to talk about the completion of the Cold War and the formation of new system-forming patterns. The main question today is what these patterns are the specifics of the new stage compared to previous, as it fits into the general Westphalian system or differs from it, how can one be a new system of international relations.

Most foreign and domestic international internationalists are taking as a watershed between the Cold War and the current stage of international relations the wave of political changes in the countries of Central Europe in the fall of 1989, and a visual symbol is considered to be the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the names of most monographs, articles, conferences, training courses on today's processes, the emerging system of international relations or world politics is indicated as relating to the period "after the Cold War" (Post - Cold War). Such a definition focuses on what the current period is not compared with the previous one. The obvious distinctive moments of the emerging systems compared with the previous one are the withdrawal of the political and ideological confrontation between the "anti-communism" and "communism" due to the rapid and almost complete disappearance of the latter, as well as the coagulation of military confrontation of blocks grouped during the cold war around two poles - Washington and Moscow. Such a definition also inadequately reflects the new essence of world politics, as at one time the formula "After World War II" did not reveal the new quality of the established patterns of the Cold War. Therefore, when analyzing today's international relations and attempts to forecast their development should pay attention to qualitatively new processes, nascent under the influence of the changed conditions of international life.

Recently, it is increasingly more often to hear pessimistic composures that the new international situation is less stable, predictable and even more dangerous than in previous decades. Indeed, clear contrasts of the Cold War are clearer than the diversity of halftone of new international relations. In addition, the Cold War is already the property of the past, the Epoch, which has become an object of unhurriedly studying historians, and the new system only originates, and its development can only be predicted on the basis of a small amount of information. This task is all the more complicated if, when analyzing the future, proceed from patterns that characterized the last system. This is partly confirmed by

The fact that, in essence, all the science of international relations operating the methodology of explanation of the Westphalian system was not able to foresee the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the change of systems does not occur instantly, but gradually, in the struggle of a new one with the old. Apparently, the feeling of increased instability and danger is caused by this variability of the new, which is still incomprehensible world.

New political world map

When approaching the analysis of a new system of international relations, apparently, it should be proceeded from the fact that the end of the Cold War completed in principle the process of registration of the United World Community. The path passed by mankind from the isolation of continents, regions, civilizations and peoples through the colonial picking world, expanding the geography of trade, through the cataclysms of the two world wars, massive access to the world arena of the states liberated from colonialism, mobilization of opposite camps of resources of all parts of the world in the confrontation of the Cold War, The increase in the compactness of the planet as a result of the scientific and technical revolution, finally ended with the crash of the "iron curtain" between the East and West and the transformation of the world into a single organism with a certain common set of principles and patterns of development of its individual parts. The world community becomes more and more in reality. Therefore, recently, high attention is paid to the problems of the interdependence and globalization of the world, the general denominator of the national components of world politics. Apparently, the analysis of these transcendental universal trends and may allow to significantly submit the direction of changes in world politics and international relations.

According to a number of scientists and politicians, the disappearance of the ideological pathogen of world politics in the form of confrontation "Communism - Anti-Communism" allows you to return to the traditional structure of relations between national states, characteristic of earlier stages of the Westphalian system. In this case, the collapse of bipolarity involves the formation of a multipolar world, whose poles should become the most powerful powers who have dropped restrictions on corporate discipline as a result of disintegrating two blocks, worlds or communities. The famous scientist and former US Secretary of State G. Kissinger in one of the last of his monographs "Diplomacy" predicts that the international relations formed after the Cold War will increasingly resemble the European policy of the XIX century., When traditional national interests and the changing relationship determined the diplomatic game, education and disintegration of unions, changing the spheres of influence. The actual member of the Russian Academy of Sciences into bendingly its foreign minister E. M. Primakov paid significant attention to the phenomenon of the nucleation of multipolarity. It should be noted that supporters of the doctrine of multipolarity operate with the previous categories, such as "great-containing", "spheres of influence", "Balance of Forces", etc. The idea of \u200b\u200bmultipolarity has become one of the central in the Software party and state documents of the PRC, although the emphasis in them is done, rather, not attempting to adequately reflect the essence of the new stage of international relations, but on the task of countering real or imaginary hegemonism, preventing the formation of a unipolar world led by the United States. In Western literature, yes, and in some statements of American officials, it is often about the "sole leadership of the United States", i.e. About unipolarity.

Indeed, in the early 1990s, if we consider the world from the point of view of geopolitics, the world map has undergone major changes. The collapse of the Warsaw Treaty, the Council of Economic Communications put an end to the dependence of the states of Central and Eastern Europe from Moscow, turned each of them in an independent agent of European and world politics. The collapse of the Soviet Union in principle changed the geopolitical situation in the Eurasian space. To a greater or lesser extent, and at different speeds, the state formed in the post-Soviet space fill their own sovereignty, form their own complexes of national interests, foreign policy courses, not only theoretically, but in essence become independent subjects of international relations. The crushing of the post-Soviet space for fifteen sovereign states changed the geopolitical situation for neighboring countries that previously interacted with the Unified Soviet Union, for example

China, Turkey, countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia. Not only the local "balance of forces" has changed, but also a multivariate relationship has increased dramatically. Of course, the Russian Federation remains the most powerful state education in the post-Soviet, and in Eurasian space. But her new, very limited compared to the former Soviet Union, the potential (if such a comparison is generally appropriate), from the point of view of the territory, population, the specific gravity of the economy and the geopolitical neighborhood, dictates a new behavior model in international affairs if they are considered at an angle of view Multipolar "Balance of Forces".

Geopolitical changes in the European continent as a result of the unification of Germany, the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the obvious pro-Western orientation of the majority of Eastern and Central Europe, including the Baltic States, are superimposed on a certain strengthening of the Europocentrism and the independence of Western European integration structures, more relief manifestation of moods in several European countries. Not always coinciding with the US strategic line. The dynamics of the economic strengthening of China and the increase in its foreign policy activity, the search for Japan more independent, incorporating its economic power in world politics cause movements in the geopolitical situation in the Asia-Pacific region. Objective increase in the share of the United States in world affairs after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is to a certain extent, it is levied by increasing the independence of other "poles" and a certain strengthening of isolationist sentiment in American society.

In the new conditions, with the end of the confrontation of the two "camps" of the Cold War, the coordinates of foreign policy activities and a large group of states that were previously in the "Third World" have changed. The Non-Aligned Movement lost its former content, the stratification of the south and the differentiation of the relationship of the resulting groups and individual states to the north, which is also not monolithic, accelerated.

Another measurement of multipolarity can be considered regionalism. With all the diverseness, the unequal pace of development and the degree of integration, regional groups make additional features to change the geopolitical car of the world. Supporters of the "civilizational" school tend to consider multipolarity at an angle of view of the interaction or collision of cultural and civilization blocks. According to the most fashionable representative of this school of the American scientist S. Huntington, a clash of multipolarity of cultural and civilization blocks is coming to replace the ideological bipolarity of the Cold War: Western-Jewo-Christian, Islamic, Confucian, Slavic-Orthodox, Hindu, Japanese, Latin American and, possibly African. Indeed, regional processes are developing on different civilization backgrounds. But the likelihood of principled division of the world community is on this basis on this moment It seems very speculative and not yet reinforced by any specific institutional or political formal realities. Even the confrontation of Islamic "Fundamentalism" with Western civilization over time loses its severity.

The economic regionalism in the form of a highly integrated European Union, other regional formations of various degrees of integration - the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Commonwealth of Independent States, ASEAN, the North American Free Trade Zone, similar entities, nascent in Latin America and South Asia. Although in a somewhat modified form, but remain regional political institutions, for example, the organization of Latin American states, the organization of African unity, etc. They are complemented by such interregional multifunctional structures as the North Atlantic Partnership, US Bunch - Japan, the Trilateral Structure of North America - Western Europe - Japan in the form of "seven", to which the Russian Federation is gradually connecting.

In short, after the end of the Cold War, the geopolitical map of the world has undergone obvious changes. But multipole explains the form rather than the essence of the new international interaction system. Does it mean a multi-pole recovery in the full action of the traditional driving forces of world politics and motivation of the behavior of its subjects in the international arena, characteristic of a greater or lesser extent for all stages of the Westphalian system?

The events of the recent years have not yet confirm the logic of the multipole world. First, the United States behave significantly maintaining what they could afford the logic of the balance of forces at the current position in the economic, technological and military regions. Secondly, with a certain autonomization of the poles in the Western world, there is no appearance of new radical separation lines of confrontation between North America, Europe and the APR. With some increase in the level of anti-American rhetoric in Russian and Chinese political elites, more fundamental interests of both powers pushed them to further develop relations with the United States. The extension of NATO did not strengthen the centripetal trends in the CIS, which would be expected by the laws of the multipole world. An analysis of the interaction of permanent members of the UN Security Council, the G8 suggests that the field of coincidence of their interests is significantly wider by the area of \u200b\u200bdisagreements with all the external dramaticness of the latter.

Based on this, it can be assumed that the behavior of the world community is beginning to influence new driving forces other than those traditionally acted within the framework of the Westphalian system. In order to test this thesis, it would be necessary to consider new factors that begin to influence the behavior of the world community.

Global Democratic Wave

At the turn of the 80s and 90s, the world socio-political space has changed qualitatively. The refusal of the peoples of the Soviet Union, most of the other countries of the former "socialist community" from the union-party system of the state device and the central planning of the economy in favor of market democracy meant termination mainly by the global confrontation of antagonistic socio-political systems and a significant increase in the specific gravity of open societies in world politics. Unique in history, the peculiarity of the self-destruction of communism is the peaceful nature of this process, not accompanied, as usual at such a radical change of the socio-political device, any serious military or revolutionary cataclysms. At a significant part of the Eurasian space - in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as on the territory of the former Soviet Union, there was a consensus in favor of the democratic form of a socio-political device. In the event of a successful completion of the process of reforming these states, primarily Russia (due to its potential), in open societies for the most part of the northern hemisphere - in Europe, North America, Eurasia - the community of peoples living on close socio-political and economic principles is formed, Professionating close values, including in approaches to the processes of global world politics.

The natural consequence of the ending in the main confrontation between the "first" and "second" worlds was weakening, and then the cessation of supporting authoritarian regimes - customers of two camps who were opposed during the Cold War in Africa, Latin America, Asia. Since one of the main advantages of such modes for the East and West was, respectively, the "anti-imperialist" or "anti-communist" orientation, with the end of the confrontation between the main antagonists, they lost their value as ideological allies and as a result lost material and political support. For the fall of individual regimes of this kind in Somalia, Liberia, Afghanistan followed the disintegration of these states and civil war. Most other countries, such as Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Zaire, began movement, truth, various rates, from authoritarianism. It further cut the world field of the latter.

In the 80s, especially on their second half, it is necessary to directly associated with the end of the Cold War, a large-scale democratization process on all continents. Brazil, Argentina, Chile moved from military-authoritarian to civil parliamentary forms of government. Somewhat later, this trend has spread to Central America. An indicative of the results of this process is that 34 leaders who participated in the meeting in the top of the Northern and South America in December 1994 (Cuba did not receive invitations), were democratically elected civil leaders of their states. Similar democratization processes, of course, with Asian specifics, were observed at this time in the APR - in the Philippines, Taiwan, in South Korea, Thailand. In 1988, the chosen government came to replace the military regime in Pakistan. A major breakthrough to democracy not only for the African continent was the refusal of South Africa from the politics of apartheid. In other countries in Africa, the departure from authoritarianism has walked a slower pace. However, the fall in the most odious dictatorial regimes in Ethiopia, Uganda, Zaire, a certain promotion of democratic reforms in Ghana, Benin, Kenya, Zimbabwe indicates that the wave of democratization did not bypassed this continent.

It should be noted that democracy has quite different degrees of maturity. This is clearly manifested in the evolution of democratic societies since the times of French and American revolutions to the present day. Primary forms of democracy in the form of regular multi-party elections, for example, in a number of African countries or in some new independent states in the territory former USSR Significantly differ from the forms of mature democracies, say, Western European type. Improved and the most advanced democracies, as proceed from the definition of democracy given by Lincoln: "The Board of the People Chosen by the people and carried out in the interests of the people." But it is obvious that there is a democracy line between the varieties of democracies and authoritarianism, which determines the qualitative difference between the internal and foreign policies of societies on both sides of it.

The global process of changing socio-political models was held in the late 80s - early 90s in different countries from various starting positions, had an unequal depth, its results in some cases are ambiguous, and there are no guarantees against the recurrence of authoritarianism. But the scale of this process, its simultaneous development in a number of countries, the fact that for the first time in history the field of democracy covers more than half of humanity and the territory of the world, and the most important, the most powerful in the economic, scientific and technical and war of the state - all this allows The conclusion about the qualitative change in the socio-political field of the world community. The democratic form of societies does not cancel contradictions, and sometimes acute conflict situations between the relevant states. For example, the fact of functioning is currently the parliamentary forms of government in India and Pakistan, in Greece and Turkey does not exclude dangerous tensions in their relationship. A significant distance passed by Russia from communism to democracy does not cancel disagreements with European states and the United States, let's say on the expansion of NATO or the use of military force against the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic. But the fact is that throughout history, democratic states never fought with each other.

Much, of course, depends on the definition of the concepts of "democracy" and "war". The state is usually democratic if the executive and legislative power are formed by competitive elections. This means that in such elections, at least two independent parties participate in such elections, it is planned to vote at least half of the adult population and there was at least one peaceful constitutional transition from one party to another. Unlike incidents, border collisions, crises, civil wars, international wars are the military operations between states with combat loss of armed forces over 1000 people.

Studies of all hypothetical exceptions from this pattern for the entire world history from the war between the syrakuses and Athens in V c. BC e. Up to today, only confirm the fact that democracies are fighting with authoritarian regimes and often begone such conflicts, but they never brought contradictions to war with other democratic states. It must be recognized that there are certain foundations for skepticism in those who indicate that over the years of the existence of the Westphalian system, the field of interaction of democratic states was relatively narrow and on their peaceful interaction influenced the overall confrontation of superior or equal in the strength of the authoritarian states. It is not yet clear how democratic states will behave in relation to each other in the absence or qualitative reduction of the threat from authoritarian states.

If the regularity of the peaceful interaction of democratic states is not violated in the XXI century, then the expansion of the democracy field in the world will mean the expansion of the global area of \u200b\u200bthe world. This, apparently, consists of the first and most importantly qualitative difference between the new emerging system of international relations from the classical Westphalian system, in which the prevalence of authoritarian states predetermined the frequency of wars both between them and with the participation of democratic countries.

A qualitative change in the relationship between democracy and authoritarianism on a global scale gave the basis of the American researcher F. Fukuyam to proclaim the final victory of democracy and in this sense to declare the "completion of history" as the struggle between historical formations. However, as it seems, the large-scale advancement of democracy at the turn of the centuries does not yet mean her complete victory. Communism as a socio-political system, although with certain changes, has been preserved in China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, in Cuba. His legacy is felt in a number of countries of the former Soviet Union, in Serbia.

With the exception, perhaps, North Korea in all other socialist countries are introduced elements of a market economy, they are somehow drawn into the global economic system. The practice of relationships of some preserved communist states with other countries is governed by the principles of "peaceful coexistence" than the "class struggle". The ideological charge of communism is more oriented on domestic consumption, in foreign policy, the top of pragmatism is increasingly taken. Partial economic reform and openness by international economic relations generate social forces requiring the appropriate expansion of political freedoms. But the dominant single-party system works in the opposite direction. As a result, there is a "swing" effect moving from liberalism to authoritarianism and back. In China, for example, it was a movement from the pragmatic reforms of Dan Xiaopin to the power suppression of student speeches on Tiananmen Square, then from a new wave of liberalization to twist the nuts, and again to pragmatism.

The experience of the XX century. It shows that the Communist System inevitably reproduces such an external policy that comes into conflict with the policies generated by democratic societies. Of course, the fact of the radical differences between socio-political systems does not necessarily determine the inevitability of the military conflict. But equally justified and the assumption that the presence of this contradiction does not exclude such a conflict and does not allow to hope to achieve the level of relations that are possible between democratic states.

The authoritarian sphere there is still a significant number of states, the socio-political model of which is determined by either inertia of personal dictators, such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or an anomaly of the prosperity of medieval forms of Eastern Board in combination with technological progress in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states , some countries of Maghreb. At the same time, the first group is in a state of irreconcilable confrontation with democracy, and the second is ready to cooperate with it until that time, while she seeks to shake the socio-political status quo established in these countries. Authoritarian structures, although in a modified form, entrenched in a number of post-Soviet states, for example in Turkmenistan.

A special place among authoritarian regimes occupy the countries of the "Islamic statehood" of an extremist sense - Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan. The unique potential of the impact on world policy gives them the international movement of Islamic political extremism, known under the not quite correct name "Islamic Fundamentalism". This is a revolutionary ideological course that rejects Western democracy as a way of life of society, admitting terror and violence as a means of implementing the "Islamic statehood", in recent years, has received widespread dissemination among the population in most countries of the Middle East and other states with a high percentage of Muslim population.

Unlike the preserved communist regimes, which (with the exception of North Korea) are looking for ways of rapprochement with democratic states, at least in the economic field, and the ideological charge of which fades, the IS-Laman political extremism is dynamic, massive and really threatens the stability of Saudi Arabia regimes. , countries of the Persian Gulf, some states of Maghreb, Pakistan, Turkey, Central Asia. Of course, in assessing the scale of the invocation of Islamic political extremism, the world community should follow a sense of measure, take into account the opposition to him in the Muslim world, for example, from secular and military structures in Algeria, Egypt, the dependence of the countries of the new Islamic statehood from the global economy, as well as signs of certain erosion Extremism in Iran.

The preservation and possibility of increasing the number of authoritarian regimes do not exclude the probabilities of military clashes both between them and with a democratic world. Apparently, it is in the sector of authoritarian regimes and in a strip of contacting the latter with the world of democracy can develop in the future the most dangerous, fraught with military conflicts. The celestial zone of states remained the "gray" zone of states who have left authoritarianism, but not yet completed democratic transformations. However, the general trend, the relief manifested recently, still testifies to the qualitative change in the global socio-political field in favor of democracy, as well as that authoritarianism leads the auricard historical battles. Of course, a study of further ways to develop international relations should include a more thorough analysis of the patterns of relations between countries that have reached different stages of democratic maturity, the influence of the democratic prevalence in the world on the behavior of authoritarian regimes, etc.

Global Economic Organism

Compare socio-political changes in the global economic system. The principal refusal of most former socialist countries from centralized economic planning meant inclusion in the 90s to the global system of market economy of large-scale potential and markets of these countries. It is true that the cessation of confrontation is not two approximately equal blocks, as it was in the military-political field. The economic structures of socialism never represented any serious competition to the Western Economic System. In the late 80s, the share of CMEA member countries in the gross world product was about 9%, and industrialized capitalist countries -57%. Most of the "Third World" economy was focused on the market system. Therefore, the process of incorporating former socialist economies in world economy I was more likely a promising value and symbolized the completion of the formation or restoration at the new level of a single global economic system. Her qualitative changes accumulated in the market system before the end of the Cold War.

In the 80s, there was a wide breakthrough in the world in the world in the direction of the liberalization of the global economy - reducing the state guardianship over the economy, providing great freedoms to private entrepreneurship within countries and refusing protectionism in relations with foreign partners, which, however, did not exclude assistance from the state with Output to world markets. It is these factors, first of all, provided the economies of a number of countries, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, an unprecedented high growth rates. The crisis, which has previously struck a number of countries in Southeast Asia, in the opinion of many economists, was a consequence of "overheating" of economies as a result of their rapid take-off while maintaining the archaic political structures deforming economic liberalization. Economic reforms in Turkey contributed to the rapid modernization of this country. In the early 1990s, the process of liberalization applies to countries of Latin America - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico. Refusal of rigid government planning, reducing the budget deficit, privatization of large banks and state-owned enterprises, the decline in customs tariffs allowed them to sharply increase the rate of economic growth and exit on this indicator to second place after East Asia countries. At the same time, similar reforms, although a much less radical nature, begin to pierce their way in India. In the 90s, tangible fruits of opening the economy of China by the outside world will be reapged.

The logical consequence of these processes was the essential intensification of the international interaction of national economies. The growth rate of international trade is superior to the world rates of intracocomic growth. Today, more than 15% of the global gross product is implemented in foreign markets. Increased international trade has become a serious and universal growth factor in the welfare of the global community. Completion in 1994 by the Uruguay Round Gatt, which provides for a further significant reduction in tariffs and the dissemination of trade liberalization on the flow of services, the transformation of the GATT to the World Trade Organization marked the exit of international trade on a qualitatively new frontier, an increase in the interdependence of the global economic system.

In the last decade, the process of internationalization of financial capital has developed in the same direction. This was especially brightly manifested in the intensification of international investment flows, which since 1995 grows faster than trade and production. This was the result of a significant change in the investment climate in the world. Democratization, political stabilization and economic liberalization in many regions made them more attractive for foreign investors. On the other hand, a psychological fracture occurred in many developing countries, which realized that attracting foreign capital is a spring-to-develop development, facilitates access to international markets and access to the latest technologies. This, of course, demanded a partial abandon from absolute economic sovereignty and meant an increase in competition for a number of domestic industries. But examples of "Asian Tigers" and China prompted most of the developing countries and transition countries to join the competition for attracting investments. In the mid-1990s, the volume of foreign investment exceeded 2 trillion. dollars and continues to grow rapidly. Organizationally this trend enshrines a noticeable increase in the activity of international banks, investment funds and securities exchanges. Another line of such a process is to essential expansion of the field of activity of transnational corporations, which today control about a third of the assets of all private companies in the world, and the volume of their products is approaching the gross product of the US economy.

Undoubtedly, the promotion of interests of domestic companies in the global market remains one of the main tasks of any state. With all the liberalization of international economic relations, interethnic contradictions, as shown by frequent US and Japan's tight disputes on trade imbalance or with the European Union due to the subsidy of agriculture, are preserved. But it is obvious that with the current degree of interdependence of the world economy, almost no state can oppose their egoistic interests to the world community, because it risks to be in the role of the world's rank or undermine the existing system with deplorable results not only for competitors, but also for its own economy.

The process of internationalization and strengthening the interdependence of the global economic system is in two planes - in global and in the plane of regional integration. Theoretically, regional integration may subsequent interregional rivalry. But today this danger is limited to some new properties of the global economic system. First of all, the openness of new regional entities - they do not take additional tariff barriers in their periphery, and they remove them in relations between the participants faster than the tariffs decrease in the global plan within the WTO. This is an incentive for further, more radical reducing barriers on a global scale, including between regional economic structures. In addition, some countries are participants in several regional groups. For example, USA, Canada, Mexico is fullly involved both at APEC and Nafta. And the overwhelming majority of transnational corporations simultaneously operates in the orbits of all existing regional organizations.

New qualities of the global economic system - the rapid expansion of the zone of market economy, the liberalization of national economies and their interaction through trade and international investments, cosmopolitization of an increasing number of subjects of the global economy - TNCs, banks, investment groups - have a serious impact on world politics, international relations. World economy It becomes so interconnected and interdependent that the interests of all its active participants require preservation of stability not only in economic, but also a military-political plan. Some scientists referring to the fact that the high degree of interaction in the European economy of the beginning of the XX century. did not prevent unleash. The First World War, ignore a qualitatively new level of interdependence of today's global economy and cosmopolitanization of its significant segment, a radical change in the ratio of economic and military factors in world politics. But the most significant, including for the formation of a new system of international relations, is the fact that the process of creating a new global economic community interacts with democratic transformations of the socio-political field. In addition, recently, the globalization of the global economy is increasingly playing the role of a stabilizer of world politics and security sphere. This influence is noticeable in the behavior of a number of authoritarian states and societies moving on authoritarianism to democracy. The large-scale and increasing dependence of the economy, for example, China, a number of new independent states from world markets, investments, technology makes them adjust their positions on political and military issues of international life.

Naturally, the global economic horizon is not cloudless. The main problem remains a gap between industrially developed states and a significant number of developing or economically stagnant countries. Globalization processes are covered primarily by the community of developed countries. In recent years, the tendency of the progressive expansion of such a break intensified. According to many economists, a significant number of African countries and a number of other states, such as Bangladesh, are lagging behind "forever." For a large group of developing economies, in particular Latin America, their attempts to approach the world leaders are reduced to no vast external debt and the need for its service a special case represent the economies that make the transition from the centralized planning system to the market model. Their access to world markets of goods, services, capital is especially painful.

There are two opposite hypotheses regarding the influence of this gap, conditionally denoted as a gap between the new North and South, to the global policy. Many international people see in this long-term phenomenon the main source of future conflicts and even attempts to the South forcibly to convert the economic well-being of the world. Indeed, the current serious lag behind the leading powers in such indicators as the share of GDP in the world economy or per capita income will require, say, from Russia (which accounts for about 1.5% of the world gross product), India, Ukraine, several Decades of development pace, several times larger than the average, in order to approach the level of the United States, Japan, Germany and keep up with China. It should be borne in mind that today's leaders will not stand still. It is also difficult to assume that in the foreseeable future, any new regional economic grouping - the CIS or, say, an emerging in South America - will be able to get closer to the EU, APEC, Nafta, each of which has more than 20% of the gross global product, World trade and finance.

According to another point of view, the internationalization of the global economy, the weakening of the charge of economic nationalism, the fact that the economic interaction of states ceases to be a game with zero result, suggests that the economic gap between the North and South will not turn into a new source of global confrontation, especially Situations when, although behind the absolute indicators from the north, the south will still develop, increasing their welfare. Here, it is probably appality for the analogy with Modeus Woveni between large and medium-sized companies within the framework of national economies: the average scale of the company is not necessarily antagonistically facing the leaders' corporations and strive to eliminate the gap between them by any means. Much depends on the organizational and legal environment in which the business is functions, in this case, the world.

The combination of liberalization and globalization of the global economy along with obvious benefits carrying both hidden threats. The goal of competition of corporations and financial institutions -pribil, and not the preservation of the stability of the market economy. Liberalization reduces the restrictions on competition, and globalization expands its field. As the last financial crisis showed in Southeast Asia, Latin America, Russia, which affected the markets around the world, the new state of the world economy means globalization not only positive, but also negative trends. Understanding this causes global financial institutions to save the South Korea economic systems, Syangan, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia. But these one-time operations only emphasize the continuing contradiction between the benefits of liberal globalism and the cost of maintaining the sustainability of the world economy. Apparently, globalization of risks will require the globalization of their management, the improvement of the structures such as the WTO, the IMF and a group of seven leading industrial powers. Obviously, the growing cosmopolitan sector of the global economy is less accountable to the world community than national economies to states.

Be that as it may, a new stage of world politics definitely puts forward its economic component to the fore. So, it can be assumed that the unification of a large Europe ultimately impede, rather, not to encounter interests in the military-political field, but a serious economic gap between the EU, on the one hand, and post-communist countries on the other. Like this, the main logic of the development of international relations, for example, in the Asia-Pacific region is dictated by not so many considerations of military security, how many economic challenges and capabilities. Over the past years, such international economic institutions as "seven", WTO, IMF and the World Bank, EU governing bodies, APEC, Nafta are clearly compared on the impact on world policies with the Security Council, UN General Assembly, regional political organizations, military unions And often superior to them. Thus, the economy of world politics and the formation of a new quality of the global economy becomes another basic parameter of the international relations system being emerging today.

New Military Security Parameters

No matter how paradoxical presented, at first glance, the assumption of the development of the trend towards the demilitarization of the world community in the light of the last dramatic conflict in the Balkans, tensions in the area of \u200b\u200bthe Persian Gulf, the instability of the non-proliferation regimes of weapons mass destructionIt still has the basis for serious consideration in the long term.

The end of the Cold War coincided with the fundamental change in the place and role of military security factor in world politics. In the late 1980s - 90s, a large-scale reduction in the global potential of the military confrontation of the Cold War is observed. Since the second half of the 80s, global defense costs are steadily reduced. Within the framework of international treaties and in the order of unilateral initiatives, an unprecedented reduction in rocket and nuclear, conventional weapons and the personnel of the armed forces is carried out. Reducing the level of military confrontation contributed to a significant redeployment of the armed forces on national territories, Development of confidence measures and positive interaction in the military field. There is a process of conversion of a large part of the world military-industrial complex. Parallel activation of limited conflicts on the periphery of the central military confrontation of the Cold War's times with all their dramaticness and "surprises" against the background of a peaceful euphoria, characteristic of the late 80s, scale and consequences cannot be compared with the leading tendency to demilitarianize world politics.

The development of this trend has several fundamental reasons. The prevailing democratic monotement of the world community, as well as the internationalization of the global economy, reduce the nutritional political and economic environment of the Global Institute of War. An equally important factor is irrefutably proven by the revolutionary value of the nature of nuclear weapons.

The creation of nuclear weapons meant widely disappearance of victory opportunities for any of the parties, which throughout the previous history of mankind was an indispensable condition for wars. Back in 1946 The American scientist B. Brody drew attention to this qualitative characteristic of nuclear weapons and expressed a firm conviction that in the future the only task and function will be the containment of war. Some time later, this axiom confirmed A.D. Sakharov. Throughout the cold war and the United States, and the USSR tried to find ways to bypass this revolutionary reality. Both sides made active attempts to get out of a nuclear powder by building and improving rocket and nuclear potentials, developing sophisticated strategies for its application, finally approaches to the creation of anti-missile systems. Fifty years later, creating about 25 thousand only strategic nuclear warheads, nuclear powers came to the inevitable conclusion: the use of nuclear weapons means not only the destruction of the enemy, but also guaranteed suicide. Moreover, the perspective of nuclear escalation sharply limited the possibility of applying conventional weapons with opposing parties. Nuclear weapons made a cold war by a type of "forced world" between nuclear powers.

The experience of nuclear confrontation during the Cold War years, radical reductions of the US Rocket and Nuclear Arsenals and the Russian Federation in accordance with the START-1 Treaties, START-2, the refusal of nuclear weapons of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine, the Ministry of Asseenses of the Russian Federation and the United States on further deeper reductions of nuclear The charges and means of their delivery, the restraint of Great Britain, France and China in the development of their national nuclear potentials make it possible to conclude on the recognition by the leading powers in the principle of the futility of nuclear weapons as means of achieving a victory or an effective means of affecting the global policy. Although today it is difficult to submit such a situation when one of the powers can apply nuclear weapons, the likelihood of using it as the most extreme measure or as a result of the error still remains. In addition, the preservation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction even in the process of radical abbreviations increases the "negative significance" of the state with them. For example, concerns (regardless of their validity) regarding the safety of nuclear materials on the territory of the former Soviet Union further increase the attention of the global community to its successors, including the Russian Federation.

On the path of universal nuclear disarmament There are several fundamental obstacles. A complete rejection of nuclear weapons means the disappearance of its main function - conspicing the war, including the usual. In addition, a number of powers, for example, Russia or China, may consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a temporary compensation for the relative weakness of their potentials of conventional weapons, and together with the UK and France - and as a political symbol of great-maintenance. Finally, the fact that even the minimum potentials of nuclear weapons can serve as an effective means of restraining the war, other countries, especially those in the state of local cold wars with neighbors, such as Israel, India, Pakistan, are learned.

The testing of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan in the spring of 1998 enshrines the factor in confrontation between these countries. It can be assumed that the legalization of nuclear status by long-standing rivals will make them more vigorously search for ways of a fundamental settlement of the solar conflict. On the other hand, not quite an adequate response of the world community on such a blow to the non-proliferation regime can be created by the temptation and other "threshold" states to follow the example of Delhi and Islamabad. And this will lead to the "Domino" effect, as a result of which the probability of unauthorized or irrational triggering of nuclear weapons can translate its deterrent capabilities.

Some dictatorial regimes, given the results of the wars for Falkland, in the Persian Gulf, in the Balkans, not only realized the hopelessness of confrontation with the leading powers with qualitative superiority in the field of conventional weapons, but also came to understand that the guarantee against the repetition of similar lesions could be possession. Weapons of mass destruction. Thus, two medium-term tasks actually emerge in the nuclear sphere to the forefront - strengthening the system of non-proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and at the same time determining the functional parameters and the minimum sufficient sizes of nuclear potentials with their powers.

Tasks in the area of \u200b\u200bpreservation and strengthening of non-proliferation regimes today are pushed out in terms of prioritization to the classical problem of reducing the strategic arms of the Russian Federation and the United States. The long-term task remains to continue to find out the expediency and finding ways to progress towards the nuclear-free world in a new world policy.

The dialectical link connecting the modes of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile means of their delivery, on the one hand, with the control over the strategic weapons of the "traditional" nuclear powers - on the other, the problem of missile defense and the fate of the contract agreement becomes. The prospect of creating nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weaponsas well as missiles medium rangeAnd in the near future and intercontinental missiles, a number of states put forward the problem of protection against such a danger to the center of strategic thinking. The United States has already been preferred for itself - the creation of a "fine" missile defense of the country, as well as regional anti-missile complexes The theaters of hostilities, in particular, in the APR - against North Korean missiles, and in the Middle East - against Iran's missiles. Such anti-missile potentials deployed unilaterally devalued rocket and nuclear deterrent potentials of the Russian Federation and China, which could lead to the desire of the latter to compensate for the change in the strategic balance by increasing their own rocket and nuclear weapons with the inevitable destabilization of the global strategic situation.

Other relevant problem is the phenomenon of local conflicts. The end of the Cold War was accompanied by a noticeable activation of local conflicts. Most of them were rather in domestic, than international, in the sense that the contradictions that caused them were associated with separatism, the struggle for power or territory within one state. Most of the conflicts became the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the exacerbation of national-ethnic contradictions, the manifestation of which was previously restrained by authoritarian systems or block discipline of the Cold War. Other conflicts, for example, in Africa, became the consequence of the weakening of statehood and economic rules. The third category is long-term "traditional" conflicts in the Middle East, in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, around Kashmir, who have experienced the completion of the Cold War, or broke out again, as happened in Cambodia.

With all the dramatism of local conflicts at the turn of the 80s and 90s over time, the sharpness of more than them slept, as, for example, in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Finally, in Tajikistan . This is partly due to the gradual awareness of the conflicting parties of the high price and the futility of military solving problems, and in many cases this trend has been supported by coercion to the world (it was in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Transnistria), other peacekeeping efforts with the participation of international organizations - the UN, OSCE, CIS. True, in several cases, for example, in Somalia, Afghanistan, such efforts did not give proper results. This trend is supported by serious advantages towards a peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as between Pretoria and "front-line states". The appropriate conflicts served as a nutrient medium of instability in the Middle East and southern Africa.

The global picture of local armed conflicts varies and the global picture. In 1989 there were 36 major conflicts in 32 districts, and in 1995 30 such conflicts were registered in 25 districts. Some of them, such as the mutual extermination of Tutsi and Huti, in East Africa, acquire the nature of the genocide. Real assessment of the scale and dynamics of "new" conflicts prevents their emotional perception. They broke out in those regions that were considered (without sufficient reason) traditionally stable. In addition, they arose at the moment when the world community believed in the conflict of world politics after the completion of the Cold War. The impartial comparison of the "new" conflicts with the "old", raging during the Cold War in Asia, Africa, Central America, in the Middle and Middle East, despite the scale of the last conflict in the Balkans, allows you to make a more weighted conclusion about the long-term trend.

Today, armed operations are becoming more relevant, which are being made under the leadership of the leading Western countries, primarily the United States, against countries that are believed to violate international law, democratic or humanitarian norms. The most visible examples are operations against Iraq in order to curb aggression against Kuwait, coercion to the world at the final stage of the internal conflict in Bosnia, restoring legality to Haiti and Somalia. These operations were conducted with the Sanctions of the UN Security Council. A large-scale military operation, undertaken by NATO, unilaterally, without coordination with UN, against Yugoslavia, in connection with the situation in which the Albanian population was in Kosovo turned out to be. The significance of the latter is that it poses the principles of the Global Political and Legal Regime, as it was recorded in the UN Charter.

The global reduction in military arsenals more reliefly designated a qualitative gap in weapons between the leading military powers and the rest of the world. Falkland conflict at the final stage of the Cold War, and then the war in the Persian Gulf and the operation in Bosnia and Serbia clearly demonstrated this gap. Progress in miniaturization and increase the ability to defeat ordinary warheads, improving the systems of guiding, control, management and exploration, means of conducting an electronic struggle, an increase in mobility is reasonable to be decisive factors of the modern war. Striving by the categories of the Cold War, the balance of the military forces between the North and the South has changed even more in favor of the first.

Undoubtedly, in this background, an increase in the material possibilities of the United States to influence the development of the situation in the field of military safety of most regions of the world. Abstraining from a nuclear factor, one can say: financial capabilities, high quality weapons, the ability to quickly transfer major contingents of troops and arms arsenals over long distances, a powerful presence in the World Ocean, the preservation of the basic infrastructure of the bases and military unions - all this has turned the United States on the available opportunities in The only global powers in the war. The crushing of the military potential of the USSR during its decay, a deep and long-term economic crisis, painfully affected the army and the military-industrial complex, the slow pace of reforming of the arms forces, the actual lack of reliable allies limited the military capabilities of the Russian Federation by the Eurasian space. The systematic, designed for a long time, modernization of the Armed Forces of China gives reason to assume a serious increase in its ability to project military power in the Asia-Pacific region in perspective. Despite the attempts of some Western European countries to play a more active military role outside the NATO's responsibility zone, as was during the war in the Persian Gulf or when conducting peacekeeping operations in Africa, in the Balkans, and as proclaimed for the future in the new NATO strategic doctrine, parameters The military potential of Western Europe itself without American participation is mainly regional. All other countries of the world for various reasons can only expect that the military potential of each of them will be one of the regional factors.

The new situation in the field of global military security is generally determined by the tendency to limit the use of war in a classical understanding. But at the same time, new forms of force are arising, for example "Operation on humanitarian reasons". In combination with changes in the socio-political and economic fields, such processes in the military sphere have a serious impact on the formation of a new system of international relations.

Cosmopolitanization of world politics

The change in the traditional Westphalian system of international relations affects today not only the content of world politics, but also the circle of its subjects. If, for three and a half centuries, the states have been dominant participants in international relations, and world policies in the main policy of interstate, in recent years they have been tested by transnational companies, international private financial institutions, non-governmental public organizations that do not have a certain nationality are largely cosmopolitan.

Economic giants who used to be easily attributed to the economic structures of a particular country, lost this binding, since their financial capital is transnational, managers - representatives of different nationalities, enterprises, headquarters and marketing systems are often located on different continents. Many of them can raise the flagpole not national, but only its own corporation flag. To a greater or less, the process of cosmopolitanization, or "offshorization", touched upon all major corporations of the world, respectively, their patriotism decreased in relation to this or that state. The behavior of the transnational community of global financial centers is often as influential as the decision of the IMF, the "big seven".

Today, the International Non-State Organization "Greenpeace" effectively fulfills the role of a "global environmental police officer" and often defines priorities in this area, which are forced to take most of the states. Social organization Amnesty International has a much greater influence than the UN Intergovernmental Center for Human Rights. The SI-En-EN television company refused to eat in his transmissions of the term "foreign", since most countries of the world are "domestic". The authority of world churches and religious associations is growing significantly and is growing. An increasing number of people born in one country who have the citizenship of another, and living and working in the third. A person is often easier to communicate through the Internet with people living on other continents than with neighbors around the house. Cosmopolitanization touched on the worst part of the human community - the organization of international terrorism, crime, drug addicts do not know the Fatherland, and their influence on world affairs remains at the high level.

All this looses one of the most important foundations of the Westphalian system - sovereignty, the law of the state to act as a higher judge at the national borders and the only representative of the nation in international affairs. Voluntary transmission of part of the sovereignty of interstate institutions in the process of regional integration or within the framework of international organizations such as the OSCE, the Council of Europe, etc., has been supplemented with the natural process of its "diffusion" in recent years on a global scale.

There is a point of view according to which the international community comes to a higher level of world politics, with the long-term prospect of the formation of the United States of the world. Or, expressing modern tongue, moves to the system, similar to the natural and democratic principles of construction and operation with the Internet. Obviously, this is too fantastic forecast. As a prereplement of the future system of world politics, the European Union would probably be considered. Be that as it may, with complete confidence it can be argued that the globalization of world politics, the growth of the specific gravity of the cosmopolitan component in the near future will require the states of a serious revision of their place and role in the activities of the world community.

Increasing the transparency of borders, strengthening the intensification of transnational communication, the technological capabilities of the information revolution lead to globalization of processes in the spiritual sphere of life of the world community. Globalization in other areas led to a certain erasure of national peculiarities of the daily lifestyle, tastes, fashion. The new quality of international political, economic processes, military security situation opens up additional opportunities and stimulates the search for new quality of life and in the spiritual area. Today we can consider universal, with rare exceptions, the doctrine of the priority of human rights over national sovereignty. The completion of the global ideological struggle between capitalism and communism allowed a new one to look at the world's dominant spiritual values, the ratio between the rights of a separate person and the welfare of society, national and global ideas. Recently, in the West, the criticism of negative traits of consumer society, the culture of hedonism is growing, the combination of individualism and a new model of moral rebirth is being searched. On the directions of searching for a new morality of the world community, such as the appeal of the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Gavel to revive the "natural, unique and unique feeling of peace, an elementary sense of justice, the ability to understand things just like others, a sense of increased responsibility, wisdom, good taste, courage, Compassion and faith in the importance of simple actions that do not claim to be a versatile key to salvation. "

The tasks of the moral renaissance are one of the first on the agenda of the world churches, a number of leading states. The result of searching for a new national idea combining specific and universal value, the process that is essentially in all post-communist societies is of great importance. There are assumptions that in the XXI century. The ability of one or another state to ensure the spiritual flourishing of its society will have no less important to determine its place and role in the world community than material well-being and military power.

Globalization and cosmopolitanization of the world community are due not only to opportunities associated with new processes in its livelihoods, but also by the challenges of recent decades. The speech is primarily about such generallylanet tasks as the protection of the global environmental system, regulation of global migration flows, tensions periodically arising in connection with the growth of population and limitations. natural resources The globe. Obviously - and this confirmed the practice - that the solution of such problems requires an adequate scale of the planetary approach, mobilizing the efforts of not only national governments, but also non-state transnational organizations of the world community.

Summing up, it can be said that the process of forming a single world community, a global wave of democratization, the new quality of the world economy, radical demilitarization and a change in the vector of the use of force, the emergence of new, non-state, enterprises of world politics, the internationalization of the spiritual sphere of humanity and challenges to the world community gives grounds To assume the formation of a new system of international relations, excellent not only from the existing Cold War, but in many respects from the traditional Westphalian system. Apparently, not the end of the Cold War gave rise to new trends in world politics - it only strengthened them. Rather, it is new, transcendental, processes in the field of politics, economics, security and the spiritual sphere, which originated during the Cold War, blew up the former system of international relations and form its new quality.

In world science on international relations, there is currently no unity on the essence and driving forces of the new system of international relations. This, apparently, is explained by the fact that today for world politics is characterized by the clash of traditional and new, residents of unknown factors. Nationalism struggles with internationalism, geopolitics - with global universalism. These fundamental concepts are transformed as "power", "influence", "national interests". The circle of subjects of international relations is expanding and the motivation of their behavior is changing. The new content of world politics requires new organizational forms. Now it is still premature to talk about the birth of a new system of international relations as a completed process. It is more realistic, perhaps to talk about the main trends in the formation of a future world order, growing up of its former system of international relations.

As with any analysis, in this case it is important to comply with the measure in assessing the ratio of the traditional and only emerging. Roll in any direction distorts the prospect. Nevertheless, even a somewhat exaggerated emphasizing the new trends of the future formative today is now more justified than the looping of attempts to explain the emerging unknown phenomena solely with the help of traditional concepts. There is no doubt that the stage of fundamental placement between new and old approaches should follow the synthesis of the new and unchanged in modern international life. It is important to correctly determine the ratio of national and global factors, a new place of the state in the world community, to make it possible to make traditional categories such as geopolitics, nationalism, strength, national interests, with new transnational processes and regimes. States that correctly identify the long-term perspective of the formation of a new system of international relations can count on greater efficiency of their efforts, and those who continue to act on the basis of traditional ideas, risk being in the tail of world progress.

Hajiyev K. S. Introduction to geopolitics. - M., 1997.

Global social and political changes in the world. Materials of the Russian-American Seminar (Moscow, October 23 - 24 / Avd. Ed. A. Yu. Melville. - M., 1997.

Kennedy P. Entering the twenty-first century. - M., 1997.

Kissinger diplomacy. - M., 1997. Pozdnyakov E. A. Geopolitics. - M., 1995.

Huntington S. Collision of civilizations // Polis. - 1994. - № 1.

Gypsy P.A. International relations. - M., 1996.

UDC 327 (075) G.Krinov

Evolution of the system of international relations and its features at the present stage

Speaking at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" (Schuchi, October 24, 2014) with a report "World Order: New Rules or Game without Rules?", President of Russia V.V. Putin noted that the world system of "checks and counterweights", which established during the Cold War, was destroyed in the active participation of the United States, but the dominance of one center of force led only to the growing chaos in international relations. According to him, the United States, facing the ineffectiveness of the unipolar world, is trying to recreate the "some kind of quasi-oxuolar 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 located on a historical fork, where there is a threat to the game without rules in the world order, which in world order should have been "reasonable reconstruction" (1).

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

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

It should be noted that until the middle of the XVII century. International relations were characterized by the disunity of their participants, the impotability of international interactions, the main manifestation of which was a short-term armed conflict or long war. In different periods, historical hegemones in the world were an ancient Egypt, the Persian Empire, the Power of Alexander Macedonsky, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Empire of Charles Great, the Mongolian Empire of Genghis-Khan, the Ottoman Empire, the Sacred Roman Empire, and others. All of them were focused on establishing their sole dominance, building a unipolar world. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church headed by a papal throne was trying to establish their domination over the peoples and states. International relations had anarchic character and differed a big 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 is beginning to be held since 1648, when the Westphalian world put an end to the thirty-year war in Western Europe and authorized the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire for independent states. From this time as the main form political organization Societies are universally approved by the National State (in Western Terminology - "State Nation"), and the dominant principle of international relations becomes the principle of national (ie, state) sovereignty. The main principal provisions of the Westphalian world model were:

The world consists of sovereign states (respectively, there is no single highest power in the world, and the principle of the universalistic management hierarchy is missing);

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

The sovereign state has an unlimited full of power over its citizens within its territory;

The world is regulated by international law, understood as the right of contracts of sovereign states among themselves, which must be observed; - sovereign states act in subjects of international law, only they are internationally recognized subjects;

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

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe national state with sovereignty was four main characteristics: the availability of the territory; the presence of a population living in this area; legitimate population management; Recognition by other national states. For

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

the absence of at least one of these characteristics state becomes sharply limited in its capabilities, or ceases to exist. The basis of the state-centrist model of the world has become "national interests", according to which the search for compromise solutions is possible (and not value guidelines, in particular religious, according to which the compromises are impossible). An important feature of the Westphalian model was the geographical limited sphere of its action. She wore a distinct european-centrist character.

After the Westphalian world entered the custom to keep with foreign courtyards permanent residents, diplomats. For the first time in historical practice, interstate boundaries were punishable and clearly defined. Thanks to this, coalitions began to arise, interstate unions, which gradually began to acquire importance. The papacy has lost importance as a supranational force. States in foreign policy began to be guided by their own interests and ambitions.

At this time, there is a theory of European equilibrium, which gained its development in the works of N. Makiavelli. He offered to establish the balance of power between five Italian states. The theory of European equilibrium will eventually take all of Europe, and it will work up to modernity, being the basis of international unions, coalitions of states.

At the beginning of the XVIII century. At the conclusion of the Utrecht world (1713), which put an end to the struggle for the Spanish legacy between France and Spain, on the one hand, and the coalition of states led by the UK - on the other, the concept of "Balance of Forces" appears (English: Balance of Power) in international documents supplemented by the Westphalian model and received widespread in the political vocabulary of the second half of the XX century. The balance of forces is the distribution of world influence between individual centers of power - poles and can take various configurations: bipolar, three-pole, multipolar (or multipole)

iT. D. The main goal of the balance of forces is to prevent dominance in the international system of one or group of states, to ensure the maintenance of international order.

Based on the views of N. Makiavelli, T. Gobs, as well as A. Smita, J.-Zh.Russo and others. The first theoretical schemes of political realism and liberalism are developing.

With a political point of view, the system of the Westphalian world (sovereign states) exists now, but with historical - it broke up at the beginning of the XIX century.

The system of international relations prevailing after Napoleonic wars was regulated by the Vienna Congress 1814-1815. The winner's powers saw the meaning of their collective international activities in creating reliable barriers against the spread of revolutions. Hence the appeal to the ideas of legitimism. The Vienna system of international relations is inherent in the idea of \u200b\u200bthe European concert - the balance of power between European states. "European Concert" (English: Concert of Europe) was based on the general consent of large states: Russia, Austria, Prussia, France, Great Britain. The elements of the Vienna system were not only the states, but also the coalition of states. "European concert", remaining the form of the hegemony of large states and coalitions, for the first time effectively limited their freedom of action in the international arena.

The Vienna International System approved the balance of power as a result of Napoleonic wars, secured the boundaries of national states. Russia consolidated Finland, Bessarabia and expanded his Western borders by Poland, dividing it with each other, Austria and Prussia.

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

As part of this system, the concept of great powers was first formulated (then, first of all, Russia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Prussia), took shape multilateral diplomacy and diplomatic protocol. Many researchers call the Viennese system of international relations in the first example collective security.

At the beginning of the XX century, new states are published on the world arena. This is primarily USA, Japan, Emania, Italy. From that moment on, Europe ceases to be the only continent where new world leaders are being formed.

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

The world gradually ceases to be an european century, the international system begins to turn into a global.

Versailles-Washington system of international relations - multipolar world order, the foundations of which were laid down on completion of the First World War, 1914-1918. Versailles peace treaty 1919, agreements with allies of Germany agreements concluded at the Washington Conference 1921-1922.

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

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

what made this structure vulnerable due to the requirements of its transformation and did not contribute long-term stability in global affairs. Its characteristic feature was the anti-Soviet orientation. The greatest benefit from the Versailles system was obtained by the United Kingdom, France and the United States. At this time, a civil war went to Russia, the victory of which remained for the Bolsheviks.

Failure to participate in the functioning of the Versailles system, isolation Soviet Russia And the antigherman orientation turned it into an unbalanced and controversial system, thereby increasing the potential of the future world conflict.

It should be noted that the composite part of the Versailles peace treaty was the charter of the League of Nations-Menstrial Organization, which determined the development of cooperation between nations, guarantees of their peace and security as the main objectives. Initially, it was signed by 44 states. The United States has not ratified this agreement and did not become among the members of the League of Nations. Then the USSR did not enter it, as well as Germany.

One of the key in the creation of the League of Nations was the idea of \u200b\u200bcollective security. It was assumed that states are legal entitled to resist the aggressor. In practice, as you know, it was not possible, and the world in 1939 was plunged into a new world war. The League of Nations actually ceased to exist in 1939, although it was formally dissolved in 1946. However, many elements of the structure and procedures, as well as the main objectives of the League of Nations, were numbered by the United Nations (UN).

The Washington system spreading to the Asia-Pacific region differed somewhat large equilibrium, but was also not universal. Its instability caused the uncertainty of the political development of China, the Military Foreign Policy of Japan, the then Isolationism of the United States, etc. Starting with the "Monroe doctrine", the policy of isolationism spawned one most important feature of the American foreign policy - a tendency to one-sided action (detectorism).

Yalta-Potsdam System of International Relations - Systems of International Relations, Enchantable by Treaties and Agreements on the Yaltaic (4-11 February 1945) and Potsdam (July 17 - August 2, 1945) Conferences of the Heads of State of the Anti-Hitler Coalition.

For the first time, the issue of post-war settling at the highest level was added during the Tehran Conference of 1943, where the position of the two powers - the USSR and the USA, and the United States, to which the decisive role passes the decisive role in determining the parameters of the post-war world, was quite clearly clearly manifested. The progress of the war originates the prerequisites for the formation of the foundation of the future of the Bipolar world. This trend has been fully manifested in 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:

Absence (in contrast, for example, from the Versailles-Washington system) the necessary legal framework, which made it very vulnerable to criticism and recognition by some states;

Bipolarity on the basis of the military-political superiority of two superpowers (USSR and the USA) over the rest of the countries. Around them there was a block formation (ATS and NATO). Bipolarity was not exhausted only by the military-force superiority of the two states, it covered almost all spheres - social and political, economic, ideological, scientific and technical, cultural, etc.;

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

Confrontation, meaning that the parties constantly opposed their actions to each other. Competition, rivalry and antagonism, and not cooperation between the blocks was the leading characteristics of relations;

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

Political and ideological confrontation between the West and East, capitalism and socialism, which introduced additional uncompromising in international relations with disagreements and conflicts;

The relatively high degree of manageability of international processes due to the fact that it was necessary to harmonize the positions of actually only two superpowers (5, p.21-22). Post-war realities, the intransigence of confrontational relations between the USSR and the United States, significantly limited the possibility of the UN to implement their statutory functions and goals.

The United States wanted to establish American hegemony under the slogan "Pax Americana" in the world, and the USSR sought to approve socialism on a global scale. The ideological confrontation, "wrestling ideas", led to a 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 opposition of two blocks was called "bipolar".

During these years, the arms race, and then its restriction, the problems of military security were central questions of international relations. In general, the tough rivalry of two blocks, which has repeatedly threatened to pour out into the new world war, got the name of the Cold War (English: Cold War). The Caribbean (Cuban) crisis of 1962 was a dangerous moment in the history of the post-war period, when the United States and the USSR seriously discussed the possibility of nuclear strike.

Both opposing blocks had in total political unions - the organization

North Atlantane Treaty, NATO (English: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; NATO), formed in 1949, and the organization of the Warsaw Treaty (ATS) - In 1955, the concept of "Balance of Forces" was one of the key elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations . The world turned out to be "divided" on the zone of influence between two blocks. For them, a fierce struggle was conducted.

A significant stage in the development of the political system of the world was the colonialism. In the 1960s, almost the entire African continent was liberated from colonial dependence. Developing countries began to influence the political development of the world. They entered the UN, and in 1955 they formed a movement of non-aligned (Eng .: Nonaligned Movement), which, according to the creators, should opposed two opposing blocks.

The destruction of the colonial system, the formation of regional and subregional subsystems was carried out under the dominant influence of the horizontal distribution of systemic bipolar opposition and increasing trends in economic and political globalization.

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

fastened by Belovezhsk agreements 1991

After 1991, a fragile and contradiction of the Belovezhskaya system of international relations (Western researchers call it POST COLD-WAR ERA), which is characterized by polycentric unipolarity. The essence of this world order was to implement a historical project for the distribution of standards of Western "neoliberal democracy" to the whole world. Political analysts were invented by the "Concept of American Global Leadership" in the "soft" and "tough" form. At the heart of "tough hegemony" were ideas about the United States as a single state with sufficient economic and military power to implement the idea of \u200b\u200bglobal leadership. To consolidate its exclusive status of the United States, according to this concept, it should, if possible, exacerbate the gap between themselves and the rest of the states. "Soft hegemony", according to this concept, is aimed at creating an image of the United States as a model for the whole world: seeking to lead to the leading position in the world, America should gently put pressure on other states and convinced their strength of its own example.

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

American hegemonism received an expression in presidential doctrines: Truman,

Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush - endowed the United States during the Cold War period almost unlimited rights to ensure security in a particular region of the world; The basis of the Clinton's doctrine was the thesis on the "expansion of democracy" in Eastern Europe in order to turn the former socialist states to the "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" received its expression and in the composition of the North Atlantic Alliance in 1999. For the first time, former members of the organization of the Warsaw Treaty were included - Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic; The doctrine of the "tough" hegemony J. Bush-younger was an answer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 and relied on three pillars: unsurpassed military power, the concept of preventive war and unilateralism. As a potential opponent in the "Doctrine of Bush", states that support terrorism or developing weapons of mass destruction - speaking to Congress in 2002 President used the expression "axis evil" in relation to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The White House categorically refused to conduct a dialogue with similar modes and declared determination by all means (up to armed intervention) to contribute to their liquidation. Frankly hegemonic aspirations of the administration of J. Bush Jr., and then B.obama catalyzed the growth of anti-American sentiment worldwide, 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 founded on globalization processes. It was an attempt to create a global world on American standards.

Finally, this project violated the balance of strength and did not have a contractual base at all, to which he drew in his Valdai speech in the city of Sochi V.V. Putin (1). It was based on the chain of precedents and one-sided doctrines and the concepts of the United States, which was mentioned above (2, p.112).

First, the events associated with the collapse of the USSR, the end of the Cold War, etc., in many countries, primarily Western, were perceived with enthusiasm and even romanticism. In 1989, in the United States appeared Article Francis Fukuyama (F. Fukuyama) "End of History?" (The End of the History?), And in 1992 his book "End of History and the Last Man." In them, the author predicted the celebration, the triumph of the liberal democracy of the Western sample, which leads this indicates the end point of the sociocultural evolution of humanity and the formation of the final form of the government, the end of the century of ideological confrontations, global revolutions and wars, art and philosophy, and with them - about the end Stories (6, p.68-70; 7, p. 234-237).

The concept of "end history" had big influence The formation of the US President George Bush's foreign policy course and actually became the "canonical text" of neoconservatives, since the main goal of their foreign policy was consonant - to actively promote the liberal democracy of the Western style and the free market around the world. And after the events of September 11, 2011, the Bush administration concluded that the historical forecast of Fukuyama is passive and history needs a conscious organization, leadership and management in the appropriate spirit, including by changing non-profit regimes as a key component of anti-terrorism policy.

Then, in the early 1990s, a splash of conflicts was followed, and in a calm, it would seem, Europe (which caused special concerns and Europeans, and Americans). It gave rise to the opposite moods. Samuel Huntington (S. Huntington) in 1993 in the article "Collision of Civilizations" (The Cloash of Civilizations) spoke from opposite F. Fukuyam positions, predicting conflicts on a civilization basis (8, p.53-54). In the book published in 1996, S. Huntington was trying to prove the thesis on the inevitability in the near future confrontation between the Islamic and Western worlds, which will resemble the Soviet-American confrontation during the Cold War (9, p.348-350). These publications also received a broad discussion in various countries. Then, when the number of armed conflicts went to the decline, there was a cease-fire and in Europe, the idea of \u200b\u200bS. Huntington about civilizational wars began to forget. However, the surge of cruel and demonstrative terrorist acts in the early 2000s in various parts of the globe (especially the explosion of twin tower in the United States on September 11, 2001), hooligan pogroms in the cities of France, Belgium and other countries of Europe taken by the people from Asia countries, Africa and the Middle East made many, especially journalists, again

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

talk about the conflict of civilizations. Discharged discussions regarding the causes and features of modern terrorism, nationalism and extremism, the confronters of the rich "North" and the poor "South" and others.

Today, the principle of American hegemony is contrary to the factor of increasing heterogeneity of the world, in which states coexist with different socioeconomic, political, cultural and value systems. Unreal

the project of the spread of the Western model of liberal democracy, lifestyle, system of values \u200b\u200bis also presented, as the general norms adopted by all or at least by most states of the world. It is opposed to equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification on the ethnic, national, religious principle, which is expressed in the growth of the influence of nationalist, traditionalist and fundamentalist ideas in the world. In addition to sovereign states, transnational and supranational associations are becoming more and independent players on the world arena. The modern international system distinguishes a colossal 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, which requires the creation of new and reform of existing institutions and mechanisms to maintain stability (such as the UN, IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, EAEU, BRICS, SCO, etc.). Therefore, in contrasts the idea of \u200b\u200bthe "unipolar world", the thesis on the need for the development and strengthening of a multipolar model of international relations as the system of "equilibrium of force" is admitted. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that any multipolar system in a critical situation tends to transform into bipolar. This clearly shows a sharp Ukrainian crisis.

Thus, the story knows 5 models of the system of international relations. Each of the models consistently replaced each other took place in its development through several phases: from the formation phase to the decay phase. Up to World War II, the inclusive source point of the next cycle in the transformation of the system of international relations was large military conflicts. In the course of their cardinal rearrangement of forces, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries was changed, a serious border crossing took place. These moves allowed to eliminate old pre-war contradictions, clear the road 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 constrained from direct military conflicts, the confrontation increased in economics, ideology, culture, although there were local military conflicts. According to objective and subjective reasons, the USSR collapsed, and behind it the socialist unit, the bipolar system ceased to act.

But an attempt to establish a unipolar American hegemony today tolerates collapse. The new world order is able to be born only as a result of joint creativity of the members of the world community. One of the optimal forms of global management can be a collective (cooperative) management carried out through a flexible network system whose cells would be international organizations (updated UN, WTO, EU, EAP, etc.), trade economic, information, telecommunication, transport and other systems . This global system will differ in high dynamics of changes, have several growth points and change simultaneously in several directions.

The emerging world system, given the balance of power, may be polycentric, and its centers themselves diversified, so that the global force structure will be multi-level and multidimensional (military centers will not coincide with the centers of economic power, etc.). The centers of the world system will possess both general features and a political, social, economic, ideological and civilizational feature.

Ideas and suggestions of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin was expressed at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Schi October 24, 2014 in this spirit, will be analyzed by the world community and implemented in international contractual practice. This was the confirmation of this was signed on November 11, 2014 in the city of Beijing at the APEC summit agreement between the United States and China (Obama and Si Jinping signed agreements on the opening of the US domestic market for China, about the notification of each other about the desire to enter "Okoloterritorial" water and others .). The proposals of the President of the Russian Federation were attributed to the G20 summit in Brisbane (Australia) November 14-16, 2014

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * Scientific Notes

Today, on the basis of these ideas, values \u200b\u200bthere is a controversial process of transformation of a unipolar world into a new multipolar system of international relations based on the balance of power.

LITERATURE:

1. Putin, V.V. World order: new rules or game without rules? / V.V. Putin // Banner. - 2014.24 October.

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

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

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

5. Systemic history of international relations: 4 tons / ed. Dr.p., prof. A. D Bogaturov. -T.1.- M.: 2000. - 325С.-1-T

6. Fukuyama, F. End of history? / F. Fukuyama // Questions of philosophy. - 1990. - № 3. - P. 56-74.

7. Fukuyama, Francis. End of history and the last person / F. Fukuyam; Per. from English M. B.

Levin. - M.: Act, 2007. - 347c.

8. Huntington, C. Collision of civilizations / S.Hhanginton // Polis. - 1994. - N ° 1. - p.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. Collision of civilizations / S. Zhanginton. - M.: Act, 2003. - 351c.

1. Putin, v.V. T He World Order: The New Rules or a Game Worthout 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.

7. FUKUYAMA, 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 Cloash of Civilizations / S. Huntington // Polis. -1994. - # 1.-p.34-57.

9. Huntington, S. The Cloash of Civilizations / S. Huntington. - m .: Ast, 2003. - 351p.

Evolution of the system of international relations and its features at the present stage

Keywords: evolution; system of international relations; Westphalian system; Viennese system; Versailles-Washington system; Yalta-Potsdam system; Belovezhskaya system.

In the article with historical and political positions, the process of transformation, evolution, established in different periods, systems of international relations is considered. Special attention is paid to the analysis and identification of the peculiarities of the Westphalian, Vienna, Versailles-Washington, Yalta-Potsdam systems. New in the research plan is to allocate in Article since 1991, the Belovezhskaya system of international relations and its characteristics. The author also concludes about the formation of a new system of international relations on the basis of ideas, proposals, values \u200b\u200bexpressed by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at the plenary session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Sochi October 24, 2014

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

The Evolution of International Relations and Its Specifics At Present Period

Keywords: Evolution, International Relations System, The Westpharalia System, The Vienna System, The Versailles-Washington System, The Belovezhsk System, The Belovezhsk System.

Nomai Donishgoҳ * Scientific Notes * 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 Conclusion ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AT THE PRESENT STAGE ON THE BASIS OF IDEAS, PROPOSALS, VALUSIAN FEDERATION V.V. Putin at the Plenary Session of the International Discussion Club "Valdai" in Sochi, October 24, 2014. The Paper Draws a Conclusion of Today The CONTROVERSIAL PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION OF THE UNIPOOL WORLD HAS CHATED INTO A NEW MULTIPOLAR SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL REALATIONS.

Kristov Grigory Nikandrovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Political Science, History, Social Technologies of Moscow state University Railways, (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 new international relations system began at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the completion of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations. However, at the specified period, more fundamental and high-quality system transformations occurred: together with the Soviet Union, not only the confrontational system of international relations of the Cold War period and Yalta-Potsdam, the world order, "the oldest system of the Westphalian world and its principles was undermined.

However, throughout the last decade of the twentieth century, discussions about what will be the new configuration of the world in the spirit of Westphalia will be actively accounted for. The dispute broke out between the two main concepts of world order: concepts of unipolarity and multipolarity.

Naturally, in the light of the only ended Cold War, the first suggests a conclusion about a unipolar world order, supported by the only remaining superpower - the United States of America. Meanwhile, in fact, everything turned out not so simple. In particular, as some researchers and policies indicate (for example, E.M.Primakov, R. Khaas, etc.), with the end of the bipolar world, the phenomenon of superpower has disappeared from the world economic and geopolitical advantages in the traditional understanding: "In times" cold Wars ", while there were two systems, there were two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States. Today the superpowered is not at all: the Soviet Union ceased to exist, but also the United States, although they have exceptional political influence and are the most powerful in military and economicly economical The state of the world has lost such status "[Primakov E.M. The world without superpower [Electronic resource] // Russia in global policy. October 2003 - URL: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/2242.html]. As a result, for the United States, a role was stated not the only one, but one of several supports of the new world order.

An American idea was thrown challenge. The major opponents of the monopoly of the United States in the world were the United Europe, increasingly gaining power China, Russia, India and Brazil. So, for example, China, and for him and Russia accepted as an official foreign policy doctrine the concept of multipolarity of the world in the twentieth century. There was a kind of struggle against the threat of domination of unipolarity, for maintaining a multipolar balance of forces as the main condition of stability in the world. In addition, it is also the fact that the US years past after the liquidation of the USSR could not have been able to actually, despite their desire for world leadership, to approve themselves in this role. Moreover, they had to experience bitter failures, they were "blamed" where it would seem to have no problems (especially in the absence of the second superpower): in Somalia, in Cuba, in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Thus, the United States at the turn of the centuries could not stabilize the situation in the world.

While the scientific circles were controversial about the structure of the new system of international relations a number of events that occurred at the turn of the centuries, in fact they themselves put all the points over "I".

Several stages can be distinguished:

1. 1991 - 2000. - This stage can be determined as a period of crisis of the entire international system and the period of the crisis in Russia. At this time, in world politics, the idea of \u200b\u200bunipolarity led by the United States was dominated in world politics, and Russia was perceived as "formerly superpower" as the "losing side" in the Cold War, some researchers even write about the possible decay of the Russian Federation in the near future (for example, Z. Bzhezinsky ). As a result, during this period, a certain dictate was observed in relation to the action of the Russian Federation by the world community.

In many respects, this was due to the fact that the foreign policy of the Russian Federation of the early 90s century had a clear "pro-American vector". Other foreign policy trends were manifested at about 1996, thanks to the replacement as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Western A. Kozyreva, the state of E. Primakov. The difference in the positions of these figures has led not only to the change of the vector russian politics - It becomes more independent, but many analysts spoke about the transformation of the Russian Foreign Policy model. Changes introduced by E.M. Primakov, may well be called a consistent "doctrine of Primakov". "Its essence: interact with the major world actors, not to whom is not rigidly precast." According to the Russian researcher Pushkova A., "This is the" Third Way ", which allows to avoid the extremes of the" Doctrine of Kozyreva "(" The position of the younger and on all or almost all of the consonant partner of America ") and the nationalist doctrine (" distanced from Europe, USA and Western Institutions - NATO, IMF, World Bank "), try to turn into an independent attraction center for all those who have no relation to the West, from Bosnian Serbs to Iranians."

After the resignation of E. Primakov from the post of Prime Minister in 1999, he was mainly continued - in essence she was not a different alternative and she responded to the geopolitical ambitions of Russia. Thus, finally, Russia managed to formulate their own geostrategue, conceptually quite reasonable and rather practical. It is quite natural that the West did not accept her, as she had an ambitious character: Russia still intends to play the role of the world power and is not going to agree with the decrease in its global status.

2. 2000-2008 - The beginning of the second stage, no doubt, was marked more than the events of September 11, 2001, as a result of which the idea of \u200b\u200bunipolarity is actually collapsed in the world. In political and scientific circles, the United States is gradually beginning to talk about departure from the hegemonic policy and the need to establish world leadership of the United States supported by the closest associates from the developed world.

In addition, at the beginning of the XXI century, there is a change in political leaders in almost all leading countries. In Russia, the new president of V.Putin comes to power and the situation begins changes. Putin finally approves the idea of \u200b\u200ba multipolar world as a basic in Russia's foreign policy strategy. In such a multipolar structure, Russia claims to the role of one of the main players, along with China, France, Germany, Brazil and India. However, the United States does not want to give up their leadership. As a result, the real geopolitical war is played, and the main battles are played out in the post-Soviet space (for example, "color revolutions", gas conflicts, the problem of extending NATO at the expense of a number of countries in the post-Soviet space, etc.).

The second stage, some researchers are defined as "Plumanikan": "We live in the Plumban period of world history. This is actually a multipolar world based on 8-10 pillars. They are not equally strong, but have enough autonomy. This is the USA, Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, but also Iran, and South America, where the leading role from Brazil. South Africa on the African continent and other pillars - power centers. " However, this is not the "world after the United States" and even more so without the United States. This is a world where, due to the rise of other global "centers of force" and strengthening their influence, the relative importance of America's role is reduced, which over the past decades has been observed in the global economy and trade. This global political awakening is happening, as Z. Brzezinsky writes in his last book. This "global awakening" is determined by such multidirectional forces as economic success, national dignity, an increase in education, information "armed", historical memory of peoples. Hence, in particular, the rejection of the American version of world history arises.

3. 2008 - Present - the third stage, first of all, was marked by the coming to power in Russia of the new president - D.A. Medvedev, and then the election of V.V. Putin on the former presidential post. In general, the foreign policy of the beginning of the 21st century was continued.

In addition, the events in Georgia in August 2008 played a key role at this stage: first, the war in Georgia was evidence that the "transitional" transformation period of the international system was completed; Secondly, the final alignment of the forces at the interstate level occurred: it became obvious that the new system had absolutely different foundations and Russia here could play a key role, developing a certain global concept based on the idea of \u200b\u200bmultipolarity.

"After 2008, Russia moved to the position of consistent criticism of the global activities of the United States, protecting the prerogatives of the UN, the inviolability of sovereignty and the need to strengthen the regulatory framework in the field of security. The United States, on the contrary, is discussed neglecting to UN, contributing to the "interception" of a number of its functions by other organizations - NATO above all. American politicians put forward the idea of \u200b\u200bcreating new international organizations on a political and ideological principle - on the basis of the compliance of their future members to democratic ideals. American diplomacy stimulates anti-Russian trends in the policies of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and is trying to create regional associations in the CIS space without the participation of Russia "- writes the Russian researcher T. Zhaklein.

Russia, together with the United States, is trying to form a certain adequate model of Russian-American interaction "in the conditions of weakening overall manageability (Government of the world system." The model that exists before this was adapted to account the interests of the United States, since Russia has long been engaged in restoring their own strength and largely depended on relations with the United States.

Today, many people reproach in ambitiousness and intention to compete with the United States. American researcher A. Cohen writes: "... Russia significantly tightened its international policy and in achieving the goals is increasingly relied on force, and not for international law ... Moscow strengthened anti-American policies and rhetoric and is ready to challenge the interests of the United States, where and when it is possible including extreme north. "

Such statements form today's context of statements about Russia's participation in world politics. The desire of the Russian leadership to limit the US dictate in all international affairs is obvious, but due to this there is an increase in the competitiveness of the international environment. Nevertheless, "the decline in inconsistencies is possible if all countries, and not only Russia, are aware of the importance of mutually beneficial cooperation and mutual concessions." The development of a new global paradigm of the further development of the global community, based on the idea of \u200b\u200bmulti-vector and polycentricity, is necessary.

International relationships - a set of political, economic, ideological, legal, diplomatic and other relations and relationships between states and systems of states, between the main classes, the main social, economic, political forces, organizations and social movements acting on the world arena, that is, between the peoples in the very The broad sense of the word.

Historically, international relations were developing and developed as relationships, first of all, interstate; The emergence of the phenomenon of international relations is associated with the emergence of the Institute of State, and the change in their nature at different stages of historical development was largely determined by the evolution of the state.

Systematic approach to the study of international relations

For modern science, the study of international relations as a holistic system operating in its laws is characterized. The advantages of this approach are that it allows to analyze the motivation of the behavior of countries or military-political blocks, identify the proportion of certain factors determining their actions, to investigate the mechanism determining the dynamics of the world community as a whole, and ideally predict its development. Systemicity in relation to international relations means such a long-term relationship between states or groups of states, which is distinguished by stability and interdependence, the basis of these relations is the desire to achieve a certain, conscious complex of sustainable goals, in which it means elements of the legal regulation of basic aspects. international activities.

Formation of the system of international relations

Systematicism in international relations - the concept of historical. It is formed during the early new time when international relations acquire qualitatively new features that have determined their subsequent development. The conditional date of the formation of a system of international relations is considered to be 1648 - the end of the thirty-year war and the conclusion of the Westphalian world. The most important condition for the emergence of the systemism was the formation of national states with relatively sustainable interests and goals. The economic foundation of this process was the development of bourgeois relations, the Idean-political side had a huge impact of the Reformation, undermining the Catholic unity of the European world and contributed to the political and cultural separation of states. Inside the state was the process of strengthening centrality trends and overcoming feudal separatism, which was the result of developing and implementing a consistent foreign policy. In parallel, on the basis of the development of commodity-monetary relations and the growth of world trade, a system of world economic relations was born, in which all the more extensive territories were gradually retracted and within which a certain hierarchy was built.

Periodization of the history of international relations in the new and the newest time

During the development of the system of international relations, a number of major stages, significantly different from each other in their internal content, structure, the nature of the relationship between the integrated elements that dominate the nature of the relationship between the integration elements that dominates the nature of the relationship is distinguished. Based on these criteria, it is customary to be allocated to Westphalian (1648-1789), Vienna (1815-1914), Versailles-Washington (1919-1939), Yalta-Potsdam (bipolar) (1945-1991) and a post-pubipolar model of international relations. Each of the models consistently replaced each other took place in its development through several phases: from the formation phase to the decay phase. Up until the Second World War, the inclusive of the initial point of the next cycle in the evolution of the system of international relations was large military conflicts, during which cardinal regrouping of forces was carried out, the nature of the state interests of the leading countries was changed, a serious border crossing took place. Thus, the old pre-war contradictions were eliminated, the road was cleared for a new turn of development.

Characteristic features of international relations and foreign policy states in a new time

From the point of view of the history of international relations, European states had decisive importance. In the "European Epoch", which was lasting up to the twentieth century, they act as the main dynamic force, increasingly affecting the appearance of the rest of the world through expansion and dissemination of the European civilization - the process started by another epoch of the great geographic discoveries of the end of XV in.

In the XVI - XVII century. I finally went into the past ideas about the medieval world order when Europe was perceived as a kind of Christian unity under the spiritual primacy of the Pope and with a universalistic tendency to politically association, which the Emperor of the Sacred Roman Empire had to be headed. Reformation and religious wars put an end to spiritual unity, and the formation of new statehood and the collapse of the Karl V empire as the last universalistic attempt is to unity political. From now on, Europe has become not so much unity as many. During the thirty-year war, 1618 - 1648. The secularization of international relations was finally established as one of their most important characteristics in a new time. If earlier the foreign policy was largely determined by religious motifs, then with the beginning of the new time the main motive of the actions of a separate state was the principle of state interests, under which such a set of long-term program-targets of the state (military, economic, propaganda, etc.) is understood, the implementation of which It would guarantee this country to preserve sovereignty and security. Along with the secularization, another important feature of international relations in the new time was the process of monopolizing foreign policy by the state, while individual feudals, merchant corporations, church organizations gradually left the European political scene. Foreign policy maintenance required the creation of a regular army to protect the interests of the state at an outside and bureaucracy, designed to more effectively implement controls inside. There was a separation of foreign policy departments from other bodies of management, there was a process of complicating and differentiation of their structure. The main role in the adoption of foreign policy solutions was played by Monarch, in the figure of which the absolutist state XVII - XVIII century. It is he who is perceived as a source and a carrier of sovereignty.

The state takes control of one of the most common means of conducting foreign policy in a new time - war. In the Middle Ages, the concept of war was multi-valued and vague, it could be applied to designate a different kind of internal conflict, various feudal groups possessed the "right to war". In the XVII-XVIII century. All rights to the use of armed forces are transferred to the state of the state, and the very concept of "war" is used almost exclusively to designate interstate conflicts. At the same time, the war was recognized as a completely normal natural means of conducting policies. The threshold that separated the world from the war was extremely low permanent readiness His statistics - two peaceful years in the XVII century, sixteen - in the XVIII century. The main type of war XVII - XVIII century. - This is the so-called "Cabinet War", i.e. The war between sovereigns and their armies, having a goal of acquiring specific territories with a conscious desire to preserve the population and material values. The most common type of war for the absolutist dynastic Europe was the war of the inheritance - Spanish, Austrian, Polish. On the one hand, these wars were talking about the prestige of individual dynasties and their representatives, on questions of rank and hierarchy; On the other hand, dynastic problems often performed as a convenient legal justification to achieve economic, political, strategic interests. The second important type of wars was trade and colonial wars, the emergence of which was associated with the rapid development of capitalism and acute trade competition between European powers. An example of such conflicts is the Anglo-Dutch and English-French wars.

The absence of external limiters of the activities of states, permanent wars demanded the development of the norms of interstate relations. One of the proposed options was an international organization or a federation designed to regulate the disputes diplomitically and apply collective sanctions to the violators of the total will. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe "Eternal Peace" took a strong position of public thought and held a certain evolution from appeal to the mind of the sovereign through the requirement of changing the political system of individual states to proclaim the inevitability of the onset of the eternal world in the future. Another common concept was the "Balance of Forces" or "Political Equilience". In political practice, this concept has become a reaction to the attempts of the Habsburgs and then Burbones establish domination in Europe. Equilibrium was understood as a means to ensure peace and security of all participants in the system. The task of summing up the legal framework to the relations of states was the emergence of works by the works of Grozh, S. Puffendorf on international law. Researchers Thomas Gobbs, Niccollo McKawelli, David Yum, Karl Househofer, Robert Schuman, Francis Fukuyam, made a significant contribution to the works on the history of international relations.

Features of the development of international relations of the XIX century. They have emerged mainly from the fact that at this time there were fundamental changes in the life of Western society and the state. The so-called "double revolution" of the end of the XVIII century, i.e. The industrial coup and the French revolution, which began in England, was the point of reference for the modernization process held during the next century, during which a modern mass industrial civilization was replaced by a traditional specifically divided agrarian society. The main entity of international relations is still the state, although it is in the XIX century. Non-state participants in international relations are also beginning to play a certain role - national and pacifist movements, various political associations. If the state with the process of secularization, the state lost the traditional support in the person of the divine sanction, then in the beginning of the era of democratization, it gradually lost its centuries-old dynastic attack. In the field of international relations, this brighter was manifested in the full disappearance of the phenomenon of wars for inheritance, and at the diplomatic level in the gradual diminishing of the issues of championship and rank, so characteristic of the old order. Having lost old supports, the state extremely sharply needed new ones. As a result, the crisis of legitimation of political domination was overcome by reference to a new authority - a nation. The French revolution put forward the idea of \u200b\u200bfolk sovereignty and examined the nation as its source and carrier. However, until the middle of the XIX century. - The state and nation appeared rather as antipodes. The monarchs struggled against the national idea as against the heritage of the French Revolution, while liberal and democratic forces demanded their participation in political life precisely on the basis of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe nation as a politically self-governing people. The situation changed under the influence of cardinal shifts in the economy and the social structure of society: the reforms of electoral law gradually admitted increasing layers to political life, and the state began to draw their legitimacy in the nation. Moreover, if the initial national idea was used by political elites, mainly instrumental as a means of mobilizing the support of his policy dictated by rational interests, it was gradually turned into one of the leading forces that determined the policy of the state.

A huge impact on the foreign policy of states and international relations in the XIX century. Purpose the industrial coup. It manifested in the increased interdependence between the economic and political power. The economy has greatly defined the goals of foreign policy, gave new means to achieve these goals, gave rise to new conflicts. The revolution in the field of communications led to overcoming the "century-old hostility of space", it became a condition for expanding the borders of the system, the "first globalization". Together with rapid technical progress in the development of armaments of the great powers, it also gave a new quality of colonial expansion.

The XIX century entered the story as the most peaceful century of the new time. Architects of the Vienna system deliberately sought to construct mechanisms designed to prevent greater war. The current and practice of the "European concert" was established at that time marked a step towards consciously managed on the basis of agreed international relations. However, the period 1815 - 1914. It was not so homogeneous, various trends were hidden for external peace, peace and war went hand in hand with each other. As before, the war was understood as a natural means of exercising by the state of its foreign policy interests. At the same time, the processes of industrialization, democratization of society, the development of nationalism gave her a new character. With the introduction almost everywhere in the 1860-70s. Universal military service began to wash the face between the army and society. From here, two circumstances were followed - first, the impossibility of waging the war against public opinion and, accordingly, the need for its propaganda training, secondly, the trend towards the acquisition of a Total war. Distinctive features Total war is the use of all types and means of struggle - armed, economic, ideological; Unlimited goals, up to the complete moral and physical destruction of the enemy; Erasing the boundaries between the military and civilian population, the state and society, public and private, mobilization of all the resources of the country to combat the enemy. War 1914 - 1918, which led the Vienna system to collapse was not only the first world, but also the first total war.

Features of the development of international relations and foreign policy of states in the newest time

World War I He became a reflection of the crisis of a traditional bourgeois society, its accelerator and stimulant and in the same form of the transition from one model of the organization of the world community to another. International legal execution of the results of the First World War and established after its end of the new arrangement of forces Versailles-Washington Model international relations. It was formed as the first global system - the United States and Japan entered the club of the Great Powers. However, to create a stable equilibrium on the basis of the balance of interests of the great powers to the architects of the Versailles-Washington system failed. She not only did not eliminate traditional contradictions, but also contributed to the emergence of new international conflicts.

Fig.1. Map "Global Peace Index".

The main thing was the opposition of the leaders and defeated states. The conflict between allied powers and Germany was the most important contradiction of interspear time, as a result of the world's abatright. Contradictions between the winners themselves did not contribute to their agreed policy and predetermined the inefficiency of the first international peacekeeping organization - League Nations. Organic vice-system vice system was ignoring the interests of Soviet Russia. In international relations, a fundamentally new - interformational, ideological-class conflict arose. The emergence of another contradiction group - between small European countries - was associated with the decision of the territorial and political issues, which took into account not so many of their interests, how many strategic considerations of the winning leaders. A purely conservative approach to solving colonial problems aggravated the relationship between the Metropolis powers and the colonies. The growing national liberation movement became one of the most important indicators of instability and fragility of the Versailles-Washington system. Despite its instability, the Versailles-Washington model cannot be described only in a negative key. Along with conservative, imperialistic tendencies, democratic, fair principles were present in it. They were due to cardinal changes in the post-war world: the rise of the revolutionary and national liberation movement, the wide distribution of pacifist sentiment, as well as the desire of a number of leaders of the leaders-winners to give a new world order more liberal appearance. These principles were based such decisions as the establishment of the League of Nations, the proclamation of independence and territorial integrity of China, restriction and reduction of weapons. However, they could not cross the destructive trends in the development of the system, which were particularly explicitly manifested in the wave the Great Economic Crisis 1929-1933. The coming to power in a number of states (first of all in Germany) forces aimed at a layer of the existing system became an important factor in its crisis. Theoretically, a possible alternative in the evolution of the Versailles-Washington system existed to the middle of the 30s, after which the destructive moments in the development of this model began to fully determine the overall dynamics of the functioning of the system mechanism, which determined the process of the crisis phase into the decay phase. The decisive event that determined the final fate of this system was occurred in the fall of 1938. We are talking about Munich AgreementAfter which you save the system from the collapse is no longer possible.

Fig.2. Political map of Europe

The World War II began on September 1, 1939, the Second World War became a kind of transition from a multipolar model of international relations to bipolar. The main centers of force, the cementing system, moved from Europe to Eurasia (USSR) and North America (USA). Among the elements of the system, a new category of superpowers appeared, the conflict interaction of which set the vector development vector. The interests of the superpower acquired global coverage, in which almost all areas of the globe fell into the zone, and this automatically sharply increased the field of conflict interaction and, accordingly, the likelihood of local conflicts. A huge role in the development of international relations after World War II played the ideological factor. The bipolarity of the world community was largely due to the domination of the postulate that there are only two alternative models of social development in the world: Soviet and American. Another important factor that had an impact on the functioning of the bipolar model was the creation of rocket and nuclear weapons, which radically changed the entire system of adopting foreign policy solutions and in the root turned the idea of \u200b\u200bthe nature of the military strategy. In real post-war world With all its external simplicity - two-generalness - it turned out to be no less, but, perhaps, more complicated than multipolar models of the previous years. The trend towards the pluralization of international relations, their exit for the tough framework of bipolarity was manifested in the intensification of the national liberation movement, applying for an independent role in global affairs, the process of Western European integration, slow erosion of military-political blocks.

The model of international relations established as a result of World War II, from the very beginning was more structured than its predecessors. In 1945, UN was formed - world Organization To maintain the world, which included almost all states - the component elements of the system of international relations. As it was developed, it was expanded and the organizational structure was improved, the organizational structure was improved, new subsidiaries appeared. Since 1949, the United States began to form a network of military-political units designed to create a barrier on the way of possible expansion of the sphere of Soviet influence. The USSR, in turn, designed the structures controlled by him. Integration processes spawned a whole series of supranational structures, the leading of which became the EEC. The structuring of the "Third World" took place, various regional organizations have arisen - political, economic, military, cultural plan. Improved legal field of international relations.

Features of the development of international relations at the present stage

With a sharp weakening and the collapse of the USSR that followed him ceased to exist a bipolar model. Accordingly, this meant the crisis of the system management, previously based on block confrontation. The global conflict between the USSR and the United States has ceased to be its organizing axis. Specificity of the situation of the 90s. Xx in. It was that the processes of the formation of a new model occurred simultaneously with the collapse of the structures of the old. This led to a significant uncertainty of contours of the future world device. Therefore, no wonder then a large number of diverse forecasts and scenarios of the future development of a system of international relations, which appeared in the literature of the 1990s. Thus, leading American political scientists, K. Yuoletz, J. Mershaimer, K. Plyon predicted a return to multipolarity - the acquisition of Germany, Japan, possibly, China and Russia of the status of power centers. Other theorists (J. Nai, Ch. Krathammer) as the main called the trend of strengthening the US leadership. Implementation of this trend at the turn of the XX-XXI century. Spent a discussion of the prospects for the approval and stable functioning of unipolarity. It is obvious that the concept of "Hegemonic stability" in the American literature is popular in the American literature, defending the thesis on the sustainability of the system based on the dominance of the only superpower, was aimed at justifying the superiority of the United States in the world. Her supporters often identify the benefits of the United States with a "common blessing." Therefore, it is not surprising that outside the United States attitudes towards a similar concept for the advantage of skeptical. Under the conditions of domination in the international relations of the power policy, hegemony is a potential threat to the public interests of all countries, with the exception of hegemon himself. It creates a situation in which the approval of the arbitrariness from the sole superpower on the world arena is possible. As opposed to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe "unipolar world", the thesis is put forward on the need for the development and strengthening of the multipolar structure.

In reality, multidirectional forces are operating in modern international relations: both contributing to the consolidation of the leading role of the United States and acting in the opposite direction. In favor of the first tendency, asymmetry in power in favor of the United States, created mechanisms and structures, supporting their leadership, primarily in the global economic system. Despite some disagreements to the US Allies remain leading countries in Western Europe, Japan. At the same time, the principle of hegemony contradicts the factor of increasing heterogeneity of the world, in which states coexist with different socio-economic, political, cultural and value systems. Ultopic currently presented a project to spread the western model of liberal democracy, lifestyle, system of values \u200b\u200bas the general rules adopted by all or at least by most states of the world. Its implementation is just one of the trends of modern international relations. It is opposed to equally powerful processes of strengthening self-identification on the ethnic, national, religious principle, which is expressed in the growth of the influence of nationalist, traditionalist and fundamentalist ideas in the world. Islamic fundamentalism is put forward as the most influential system alternative to American capitalism and liberal democracy. In addition to sovereign states, transnational and supranational associations are becoming more and independent players on the world arena. The consequence of the process of transnationalization of production, the emergence of the global capital market is some weakening of the regulatory role of the state in general and the United States in particular. Finally, although the dominant power receives undoubted benefits from its position on the world arena, the global nature of its interests requires considerable costs. Moreover, the complication of the modern system of international relations makes it almost unrealized by managing it from one center. Along with the superpower in the world, there are states with global and regional interests, without cooperation of which it is impossible to solve the most acute problems of modern international relations, to which, first of all, the distribution of weapons of mass lesion and international terrorism. The modern international system distinguishes a colossal 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, which requires the creation of new branched institutions and mechanisms for maintaining stability.

Recommended literature

Introducing the theory of international relations: Tutorial / OT. editor A.S. Manykin. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001 (works of the historical faculty of Moscow State University: Vol. 17. Ser. III. Instrumenta Studiorum).

Conflicts and crises in international relations: problems of theory and history: the materials of the Association of the US study / the problems of the American issues. 11 d. editor. A.S. Manykin. - M.: Max Press, 2001

Basics of the general theory of international relations: a tutorial / ed. A.S. Manykina. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2009. - 592 p.

Models of regional integration: past and present. Edited by A.S. Manykina. Tutorial. M., ol b printh. 2010. 628 p.

Gorokhov V.N. History of international relations. 1918-1939: lecture course. - M.: Publishing House Mosk. University, 2004. - 288 p.

Medeakov A. S. History of international relations in a new time. - M. Enlightenment, 2007. - 463 p.

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

Pilko A.V. "Trust crisis" in NATO: Alliance on the threshold of change (1956-1966). - M.: Publishing House Mosk. University, 2007. - 240 s.

Romanova E.V. The path to war: the development of the Anglo-German conflict, 1898-1914. - M.: Max Press, 2008. -328 p.

Plan:

1. Evolution of the system of international relations.

2. Middle East and 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 importance.

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

After World War II, as we already know, formed two-pole systeminternational relations. In it, the US and the USSR were advocated as two superpowers. Between them - the ideological, political, military, economic confrontation and rivalry that were called "Cold War". However, the situation began to change from restructuring in the USSR.

Perestroika in the USSR I had a significant impact on international relations. The head of the USSR M. Gorbachev put forward the idea of \u200b\u200bnew political thinking. He stated that the main thing is the problem of the survival of mankind. Its solution should, according to Gorbachev, all foreign policy activities are subordinate to. The decisive role was played by negotiations at the highest level between M. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, and then J. Bush-senior. They led to the signing of bilateral negotiations on the elimination of rockets of medium and less distance in 1987 year I. on the limitation and reduction of offensive arms (START - 1) in 1991.Contributed to the normalization of international relations and the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989 year.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia continued pro-Western, pro-American policies. A number of contracts for further disarmament and cooperation were concluded. To such agreements - START-2, concluded in 1993 year. The consequences of such a policy - in lowering the threat new war Using weapons of mass lesion.

The collapse of the USSR in 1991, which was a natural outcome of the restructuring, "velvet" revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1989-1991, which followed by the collapse of the ATS, CEV, the socialist camp promoted the transformation of the system of the international system. Of two-pole it turned into a single-polewhere the major role was played by the United States. The Americans, being the only superpower, took the course to extend their weapons, including the newest, and also promoted the expansion of NATO to the East. IN 2001 the year the United States came out of the contract for 1972. IN 2007 the Americans announced the placement of systems about in the Czech Republic and Poland, near the Russian Federation. The United States has taken a course to support M. Saakashvili regime in Georgia. IN 2008 The year, Georgia in the military-political, economic support of the United States, attacked South Ossetia, attacking Russian peacekeepers, which roughly contradicts international law. Aggression was reflected by Russian troops and local militia.

Serious changes occurred in Europe at the turn of the 80-90s of the twentieth century . In 1990, the union of Germany occurred. IN 1991 were eliminated by CEV, ATS. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic joined NATO. In 2004 - Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. In 2009 - Albania, Croatia.The expansion of NATO to the East, which cannot but disturb the Russian Federation, took place.

In terms of reduction of the threat of global war, local conflicts in Europe and in the post-Soviet space increased. Armed conflicts between Armenia and Azerbajan, in Transnistria, Tajikistan, Georgia, in the North Caucasus. Particularly bloody were political conflicts in Yugoslavia.They are characterized by mass ethnic cleansing, refugee flows. In 1999 NATOat the head of the United States without the UN sanction committed an open aggression against Yugoslavia, starting the bombing of this country. In 2011nATO countries attacked Libya, overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi's political regime. At the same time, the head of Libya himself was physically destroyed.

Another focus of tension continues to exist in the Middle East. The turbulent region is Iraq. Difficult relationships between India and Paipetan. In Africa, intergovernmental and civil wars, accompanied by mass extermination of the population, periodically flare up. Strives tensions in a number of regions of the former USSR. In addition to Y. Ossetia and Abkhazia here exist and other unrecognized republics - Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh.

11. 09. 2001 in the USA - Tragedy. Americans became an object of aggression. IN 2001.The United States proclaimed its main goal to fight terrorism. The Americans invaded this precloss in Iraq, Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime will be overthrown with local forces. This led to a multiple growth of drug trafficking. In Afghanistan itself, the fighting between the Taliban and the occupying forces is increasingly enhanced. The role and authority of the UN has decreased. The UN has not been able to resist American aggression.

However, it is obvious that the United States is experiencing many problems that fell its geopolitical power. The 2008 Economic Crisis, 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 grain of default. Many as domestic and foreign researchers speak about the problems of the American financial system. Under these conditions, alternative forces appeared, which in the future can act as new geopolitical leaders. These include the European Union, China, India. They, as well as the Russian Federation, oppose a unipolar international political system.

However, the transformation of the international political system from unipolar in multipolar obstacles different factors. Among them are socio-economic problems and disagreements between the states in the EU. China, India, despite economic growth, still remain the "contrast countries". The low standard of living of the population, the socio-economic problems of these countries do not allow to become full-fledged US competitors. This concerns modern Russia.

Let's summarize. At the turn of the centuries, there is an evolution of the system of international relations from a bipoly to one-pole, and then to a multipole.

Nowadays, a large influence on the development of a system of modern international relations has religious factor, especially Islam. According to religious scientists, Islam is the strongest and viable religion of modernity. None in any religion there is no such number of believers who have been betrayed by their religion. Islam is felt as the basis of life. Simplicity and consistency of the maintenance of this religion, its ability to give the believers a holistic and understandable picture of the world, society and the device of the Universe - all this makes Islam attractive for many.

However, the ever-growing threat from Islam forces an increasing number of people to look at Muslims with distrust. At the turn of the 60-7th of the twentieth century, the growth of the socio-political activity of Islamists began on the wave of disappointment in the ideas of secular nationalism. Islam switched to the offensive. Islamization seized the educational system, political life, culture, life. Separate currents of Islam at the turn of the centuries, closely collapsed with terrorism.

Modern terrorism turned into danger to the whole world. Since the 80s of the twentieth century in the Middle East, the Islamic militarized terrorist groups are developed in the Middle East. Hamas "and" Hezbollah ". Their intervention in political processes in the Middle East is huge. "Arab Spring" clearly passes under Islamic banners.

The Islam's challenge is implemented in the form of processes that researchers are classified in different ways. One considers the Islamic challenge as a consequence of civilization confrontation (concept of S. Huntington). Others make focus on economic interests that are behind the activation of the Islamic factor. For example, the countries of the Middle East are rich in oil. The initial point of the third approach is the analysis geopolitical factors. It is assumed that there is certain political forces that use similar movements and organizations for their own purposes. Fourth say that activation of a religious factor is a form of national liberation struggle.

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

However, Islam is not the only religion affecting the modern system of international relations. Christianity also acts as a geopolitical factor. Recall what influence has ethics of Protestantism on the development of capitalist relations. This relationship well revealed the German philosopher, sociologist, political analyst M. Weber. Catholic Church, for example, had an impact on political processes that took place in Poland During the years of the Velvet Revolution. She managed to maintain moral authority in the conditions of an authoritarian political regime and influence ensuring that the change of political power adopted civilizational forms to make different political forces to consensus.

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

The religious factor in the form of Islam has pronounced itself in the countries of the Middle East. It is in the Middle East to raise the head of Islamist oralization. Such, for example, as "Muslim Brothers". They set themselves the goal to Islamize the whole region.

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

Not the last role was played by events in the Middle East, called the "Arab Spring". "Arab Spring" is a revolutionary wave of protests, which began in the Arab world on 12/18/2010 and continued until now. "Arab Spring" touched upon such countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Iraq.

"Arab Spring" began with protests in Tunisia 12/18/2010, when Mohammed Buaazzyns burned himself in protest against corruption and police arbitrariness. Today, the Arab Spring has led to the fact that several heads of state were overthrown in the revolutionary form: President Tunisia Zin El Abidin Ali, Mubarak, and then Mirsi in Egypt, the leader of Libya Muammar Kadafi. He was overthrown on 08/23/2011, and then killed.

Still extended in the Middle East arab-Israeli conflictwho has his own background . In November 1947, the UN decided to create two states in Palestine: Arabic and Jewish. Jerusalem was released into an independent unit. In May 1948. The year was proclaimed by the state of Israel, and the first Arab-Israeli war began. In Palestine, the troops of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq. 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 by the defeat of the Arabs.

In June 1967 Israel began military operations against Arab states in response to activities OOP - the organization of the liberation of Palestine led by Yasir Arafat, created in 1964 year with the aim of struggle for education in Palestine Arab State and the liquidation of Israel. Israeli troops moved deep into Egypt, Syria, Jordan. However, the protests of the world community against aggression, to which the USSR joined, forced Israel to stop the offensive. During the six-day war, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, eastern part Jerusalem.

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

All the attempts of the UN and the world's leading powers will achieve the termination of the conflict did not have success. Since 1987. G. In the occupied territories of Palestine began intifada - Palestinian uprising. In the mid-90s. Convenience was achieved between the leaders of Israel and the OOP on the creation of autonomy in Palestine. But Palestinian autumn was in full dependence on Israel, and Jewish settlements remained on its territory. The situation was aggravated at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first century, when second intifada.Israel was forced to bring his troops and immigrants from the Gaza Sector. Mutual shelling of the territory of Israel and Palestinian authemia continued, terrorist acts. 11. 11. 2000. Y. Arafat died. In the summer of 2006, the war was held between Israel and the Hesbol organization in Lebanon. At the end of 2008 - early 2009, Israeli troops hit the Gaza sector. Armed actions led to the death of hundreds of Palestinians.

In conclusion, we note that the Arab-Israeli conflict is far from its completion: in addition to mutual territorial claims of conflicting parties, there is a religious and ideological confrontation between them. If the Arabs consider the Quran as a global constitution, then the Jews are about the triumph of the Torah. If Muslims dream to recreate the Arab Khalifat, then the Jews are to create "Great Israel" from Nile to Euphrates.

For the modern system of international relations, not only globalization is characterized, but also integration. Integration, in particular, manifested in that: 1) in 1991 was created CIS - Union of independent states, uniting the former republics of the USSR; 2) Lag.- League of Arab states. This is an international organization that unites not only Arab states, but also those that are friendly to Arab countries. Created in 1945. The highest authority is the League Council. The Lag includes the 19 Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Among them: Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Somalia. Headquarters - Cairo. Lag is engaged in political integration. In Cairo, December 27, 2005, the first session of the Arab parliament was held, whose headquarters is located in Damascus. In 2008, the Arab Charter of Human Rights entered into force, which differs significantly from European legislation. The Charter is based on Islam. She equates zionism to racism, admits with respect to juvenile death penalty. Heads Lag Secretary General. From 2001 to 2011 they were Alemer Musa, and since 2011 - Nabil al-Arabi; 3) EU- European Union. The EU is legally enshrined by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Unified currency - euro. The most important EU institutions are: Council of the European Union, court European Union, European Central Bank, European Parliament. The existence of such institutions suggests that the EU seeks not only political, but also to economic integration.

Integration and institutionalization of international relations are manifested in the existence of international organizations. Dadim brief description International organizations and areas of their activities.

Name	date	Characteristic
UN		International Organization, established to support and strengthen international peace and security. For 2011 included 193 states. Most of the total contributions are the United States. General Secretaries: Boutros Baotros Gali (1992 - 1997), Kofi Annan (1997 - 2007), Ban Ki-moon (from 2007 to today). Official languages: English, French, Russian, Chinese. RF - UN member
MOT		The UN specialized institution engaged in the regulation of labor relations. RF - Member ILO
WTO		An international organization created in order to liberalize trade. RF member of the WTO since 2012.
NATO		Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty, the world's largest military-political bloc, uniting the majority of Europe, USA, Canada.
EU		Economic and political association of European states aimed at regional integration.
IMF, IBRD, WB		International financial organizationsCreated on the basis of interstate agreements regulate currency and credit relations between states. IMF, IBRD - UN specialized agencies. The Russian Federation in the 90s appealed for help in these organizations.
WHO		Specialized UN establishment, dealing with international health problems. Members of WHO - 193 state, including the Russian Federation.
UNESCO		UN organization on education, science, culture. The main goal is to promote peace and security by expanding the cooperation of states and peoples. RF - member of the organization.
IAEA.		International Organization for the development of cooperation in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy.

International relations, like any social relationship, need proasa regulation. Therefore, a whole branch of law has emerged - international law, raising the regulation of relations between countries.

Principles and norms related to the field of human rights were developed and accepted both in domestic law and international law. Historically, the norms regulating the activities of states during the armed conflict period were initially established. Unlike international conventions aimed at restricting the cruelty of war and ensuring humanitarian standards for prisoners of war, wounded, warring, civilians, principles and norms relating to human rights in the context of the world, began to develop only at the beginning of the twentieth century. International human rights agreements are divided into the following groups. The first group includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Covenants on Human Rights. The second group includes international conventions on the protection of human rights in the period of armed conflict. These include the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the protection of the victims of the war, additional protocols to them, adopted in 1977. The third group comprise documents in which the responsibility for violating human rights in peacetime and during armed Conflicts: Sentences of the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg, Tokyo, the International Convention on the Suppression of the Crime of Apartheid and Punishment for Him in 1973, the Roman Statute of the 1998 International Criminal Court.

The development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights took place in acute diplomatic struggle between Western countries and the USSR. Western countries, when developing a declaration, relied on the French Declaration of Human Rights and a citizen of 1789, the US Constitution 1787. The USSR insisted that the USSR Constitution 1936 was taken as the basis for the development of the Universal Declaration. The Soviet delegation also advocated the inclusion of social and economic rights , as well as articles by the Soviet constitution, in which the right of each nation on self-determination was proclaimed. The fundamental differences and ideological approaches have been discovered. 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 its various freedoms, is a recommendatory. However, this fact does not accommodate the importance 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 speaks of numerous human rights, personality, citizen, about their legal statuses, one might think that the Russian Constitution wrote "under the copy".

Date of adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 10.12.1948 It is noted as an international day of human rights protection. Declaration in Latin means a statement. The declaration is the official state-proclaimed basic principles that have a recommendatory nature. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is said that all people are free and equal in their dignity and rights. It is proclaimed that each person has the right to life, freedom, personal integrity. The Regulations on the presumption of innocence are included: A person accused of committing a crime has the right to be considered innocent until his fault has been proven in court. Each person is also guaranteed freedom of thought, obtaining and disseminating information.

By adopting a 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, examined at its session 18 of the 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 pact. However, the United States and their allies insisted that the Pact was limited by 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 instead of one Covenant of two Covers: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The decision of the General Assembly was kept in its resolution on February 5, 1952, No. 543. After that, the UN solutions for many years discussed certain provisions of the Covenants. On December 16, 1966 their approval took place. Thus, international human rights packages were preparing over 20 years.As with the development of the Universal Declaration, in the process of their discussion, ideological disagreements between the United States and the USSR were bright, since these countries belonged to various socio-economic systems. In 1973, the USSR ratified both pacts. But in practice they did not perform. In 1991, the USSR became a member of the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Russia as the adviser of the USSR assumed the obligations to comply with all international treaties of the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993 it is said about the natural nature of human rights, about their inalienableness since the birth of a person. From the comparative analysis of the content of legal sources it follows that the Constitution of the Russian Federation consolidated almost the entire complex of human rights and freedoms contained not only in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also in both paits.

Go to the characteristic International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The pact translated from the Latin language means the contract, agreement. Pact is one of the items of the International Treaty, which has great political importance.. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted in 1966. We note that economic, social and cultural rights are relatively recently 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. Specific list of them in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights begins with the proclamation of human rights to work (Article 6), the right of everyone on favorable and fair working conditions (Article 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 Covenant, a person has the right to a decent remuneration of labor, for a fair wage, the right to strike in accordance with local legislation. The document also notes that promotion should be adjusted not related bonds, but labor experience, qualifications. The family should be protected and protecting the state.

It is necessary to recall that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1996. The Covenant contains a wide range of rights and freedoms that should be provided by each State party to all persons without any restrictions. Note that there is also a meaningful relationship between two pacts: a number of provisions contained in the International Covenant Civil and Political Freedoms relate to issues that are regulated in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This is Art. 22, provided for the right of every person to freedom of association with others, including the right to create trade unions and join them, Art. 23-24 About family, marriage, children, proclaiming equality of rights and obligations of spouses. The third part of the Covenant (Article 6 - 27) contains a specific list of civil and political rights, which must be provided in each state: the right to life, prohibition of torture, slavery, slave trade and forced labor, the right of everyone to freedom and personal integrity (Article 6 - 9), the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 18), the right to non-interference in personal and family a life. In the Covenant it says that all persons must be equal to the court. The value of the Covenant is that it consolidated the principle of modern international law, in accordance with which fundamental rights and freedoms must be respected in any situation, including the period of military conflicts.

International community were accepted and optional protocols. Under optional protocols in international law refers to a type of a multilateral international treaty signed in the form of an independent document, usually due to the conclusion of the main contract in the form of an application to it. The reason for the adoption of the Optional Protocol was as follows. When developing a Civil and Political Rights Covenant for a long time, the issue of the procedure for considering complaints of individuals was discussed. Austria proposed to create a special case within the framework of the Covenant international Court by human rights. The case could not be initiated by the state as subjects of international law, but also separate individuals, groups of persons, non-governmental organizations. The USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe are the Satellites of the USSR, opposed. As a result of the discussion of the issues, it was decided in the Covenant on civil and political rights not to include provisions on the consideration of complaints of individuals, leaving them for a special agreement - the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly Together with the Covenant on December 16, 1966 in 1989, the second optional protocol was adopted to the Covenant Covenant and Political Rights, aimed at canceling the death penalty. The second optional protocol has become an integral part of the International Bill on Human Rights.

Before talking about the place and the 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 would like to emphasize. First, international relations have become more complex. Causes: a) an increase in the number of states As a result of decolonization, collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, 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) an even greater number of factors began to influence international relations.: The scientific and technological revolution "did not go for nothing" (the development of information technologies).

Secondly, the unevenness of the historical process continues to exist.. The gap between the "south" ("world village) - underdeveloped countries and the" north "(world town") continues to increase. Economic, political development, gepolytic 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 single-pole world - the United States.

Thirdly, integration processes in the modern system of international relations are mastered: Lag, EU, CIS.

Fourth, in the conditions of a single-pole world, levers influence in which belongs to the United States, arise local military conflictsundermining the authority of international organizations, and, first of all, the UN;

Fifth international departments at the present stage are institutionalized. Institutionalization of international harassment is that there are norms of international law, evolving towards humanization, as well as various international organizations. The norms of international law are increasing deeper into the legislative acts of regional importance, in the consitution of various countries.

At sixth, the role of religious factor increases, especially Islam, on the modern system of international relations. Political scientists, sociologists, religious attention pays increased attention to the study of the "Islamic factor".

Sixth, international relations at the present stage of development susceptible to globalization. Globalization is a historical process of convergence of peoples, between which traditional borders are erased.. A wide range of global processes: scientific and technical, economic, social, political - all closely link countries and regions into a single world community, and national and regional economies in a single world economy in which capital is easily stepped by state borders. Globalization is also manifested in democratization of political regimes. The number of countries where modern constitutional, judicial, modern constitutional systems are being introduced. Fully democratic to the beginning of the twenty-first century has already become 30 states or 10% of all countries of the modern world. It should be noted that globalization processes spawned problems Since they led to the breakdown of traditional socio-economic structures, changed the usual way of life of many people. You can allocate one of the main global problems - this the problem of relations "West" - "Vostok", "North" - "South". The essence of this problem is well known: the gap in the level between rich and poor countries is continuously increasing. Remains relevant today and the most the main global problem of modernity is the prevention of thermonuclear war. This is due to the fact that some countries stubbornly tend to possess their own weapons of mass lesion. Experimental nuclear explosions of India, Pakistan, conducted a test of new species. rocket weapons Iran, North Korea. Environmentally develops a program for creating a chemical weapon of Syria. This situation makes a very likely to use weapons of mass lesion in local conflicts. This is evidenced by the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the fall of 2013.

Evaluating the role of Russia in the system of international relations, it should be noted her ambiguityThat J. Shevchuk expressed well in the song "Monogeard": "Reduced the Power before Fantik, however, our nuclear shield survived." On the one hand, Russia has threamed access to the seas, its geopolitical situation has deteriorated. In politics, economics, the social sphere, the problems that are prevented by the Russian Federation to apply for the status of a full-fledged US competitor. On the other hand, the presence of nuclear weapons, modern armed tools forcing other countries to reckon with Rossyan position. Russia has a good opportunity to declare himself as a global player. All necessary resources for this are available. The Russian Federation is a full-fledged member of the international community: consists of various international organizations, participates in various meetings. Russia is integrated into various global structures. But at the same time, insecting problems, the main of which is corruption associated with the technological backwardness, the declarative nature of democratic values, prevent the country to realize their potential.

The role and place of Russia in modern global world largely determined by its geopolitical position - placement, power and ratio of forces in the world system of states. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 weakened the foreign policy position of the Russian Federation. With the reduction of economic potential, the country's defense capability suffered. Russia turned out to be submitted to the northeast, deep into the Eurasian continent, having lost half of seaports, direct access to worldwides in the West and the south. The Russian fleet lost traditional bases in the Baltic States, an argument with Ukraine arose 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.

Of particular importance for Russia acquired relations with Western countries. An objective basis for the development of Russian-American relations was mutual interest in the formation of a stable and secure system of international relations. In the late 1991 - Nach. 1992 President of the Russian Federation B. Yeltsin stated that nuclear rockets No longer aimed at US objects and other Western countries. In the joint declaration of two countries (Kemp-David, 1992), the end of the Cold War was recorded and stated that the Russian Federation and the United States did not consider each other as potential opponents. In January 1993, a new agreement was concluded about the limitation of strategic offensive arms (OSNV-2).

However, despite all assurances, russian leadership faced the problem of expanding NATO east. As a result, Eastern European countries joined NATO.

Russian-Japanese relations also underwent evolution. In 1997, Japan's leadership actually announced a new diplomatic concept against the Russian Federation. Japan stated that it will now be separated by the problem of "northern territories" from the entire complex of issues of bilateral relations. But the nervous "diplomatic demarche" Tokyo about the visit of the President of the Russian Federation D. Medvedev to the Far East speaks about the opposite. The problem of "northern territories" is not solved that it does not contribute to the normalization of Russian-Japanese relations.