Lecture
Objective: To reveal the interrelation and interaction of the methodological foundations and methods of
research in the theory of international relations. To analyze the problem of method in the
study of international relations. To clarify the specific features of the theoretical and
empirical levels of research. To examine the concepts and categories of the theory of international
relations. To characterize general scientific (instrumental) concepts and categories.
1. The problem of method in the study of international relations.
2. Specific features of the theoretical and empirical levels of research.
3. The concept and categories of the theory of international relations.
4. Difficulties in forming a conceptual and categorical system.
5. General scientific (instrumental) concepts and categories.
6. Diplomacy as a means of regulating international relations
Methodology and the problems associated with it are among the most complex issues in contemporary
social sciences. As P. Tsygankov believes, the problem of method is one of the most important
questions of any science, since it ultimately concerns how to obtain new knowledge, how
to apply it in practical activity". The question of method in every science comes down to
the study of the ways and techniques of scientific cognition of reality and the features of their
practical application. Such knowledge is accumulated and systematized within
a special branch of any science — methodology.
In the modern scientific understanding, methodology — is a set of approaches, ways,
methods, techniques and procedures used in the process of scientific cognition; it is
a branch of theoretical knowledge and ideas about the essence and forms, laws, order and conditions
of the application of approaches, ways, methods, techniques and procedures aimed at
studying reality. It is formed both on the basis of general principles of cognition and
under the influence of the specific features of the subject of study of a particular science. Its specific
features determine both the set of research methods and the concrete techniques of their
application.
The methodology of science is built on principles arising from the initial ideas
about the object of research accumulated beforehand. A problem of contemporary theory of
international relations, which has led to its methodological imperfection, is the controversy
of the primary principles for understanding its own object of study, arising from different
— even diametrically opposed — interpretations of international relations. This concerns,
above all, the traditional divergence between the principles of subjectivism and objectivism, which
overall reflects a fundamental discourse in philosophy and other social sciences.
Subjectivism is a system of views associated with interpreting international
relations as social relations devoid of an objective basis, arising from
human nature, which shape and direct individuals. This principle is expressed in
derivative principles that have the character of a postulate for individual scholarly and scientific
schools – anthropomorphism and normativism.
Objectivism consists in the fact that international relations have a real character, and
their driving forces and regularities do not depend on human will and desires. On the basis of this
approach, the derivative principles of structuralism, rationalism, and determinism have been formulated.
Another problem of methodology is the controversy regarding the main actors in the international
environment. Its result was the emergence of two mutually opposing principles:
state-centrism (statism) and transnationalism.
The controversial nature of the principles for understanding the object in the theory of international relations
leads to the fact that its methodology cannot be regarded as a system of approaches and methods
of research, but rather as a multitude of separate methodologies. They can be reduced to two directions:
traditionalism and empiricism. The debate between their proponents concerns which
methods should determine research in the theory of international relations: those built on
general logic or on precise facts, strictly described using mathematical methods.
Methodology is also based on scientific approaches to studying the international
system and the specific methods associated with them. An approach is understood as an initial
assertion that is more general than a principle, and concerns an assumption about the most important
features of the object of research or the way of cognizing it. In the methodology of research on
international relations, the systems approach is applied above all, being an established
direction of the methodology of scientific cognition that directly contributes to an adequate
formulation of problems and a logically consistent strategy for their solution. It consists in the holistic
perception of international relations and understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependence
of its parts. It requires "...a review of the interdependence of all subjects of international
relations and the functioning of international systems.
A system is understood not as a spontaneous multitude of individual phenomena, but as
an interconnected set of subjects of international relations, joined by cause-and-effect links. Methodologically, this approach is expressed in interpreting international
relations as a holistic phenomenon, where there are regular connections between its elements, a clear
hierarchy, and stable interdependencies. E. Poznyakov points to another important aspect of the systems approach,
asserting that it should be understood as "...the consideration of the object in the unity"
of its... analysis and synthesis". That is, the systems approach is manifested in the unity of the process
of studying the international system, which makes it possible to avoid, in our view, an artificial
opposition of theories built on induction to deductive theories.
M. Shepelev emphasized that "the principles of general connection and development as the basic
principles of the dialectical method are inseparably linked to each other and act in organic
unity. Since motion and the development of objects are an expression of their general connection, motion and
development are a manifestation of the unity of the world, which conditions the presence of general laws of development". These
approaches are most important in contemporary science, since the first leads to studying the
elementary structure of a phenomenon and its interconnections, while the second allows it to be considered in its
evolution. In the theory of international relations, the systems and dialectical approaches have not yet become
determining ones, since the systems theory of modernism and neorealism, on which they are generally
based, are far too removed from being exhaustive and complete. Also important are
the deductive and inductive approaches.
The deductive approach — is a method of research consisting in making assumptions about the
nature of specific elements of the international system, proceeding from knowledge of its
general features. That is, the process of research specifies general knowledge about
international relations.
The inductive approach — is a way of judging the general features of a phenomenon,
proceeding from knowledge of its individual elements. This involves generalizing specific knowledge
about the primary elements of the international system and the connections between them. P. Tsygankov defines
method as "...the sum of the techniques, means and procedures by which a science studies its subject, as well as
the body of already existing knowledge".
Specific features of the theoretical and empirical levels of research.
In theory, methodology is based on the need for generalization, while in empirical
research it is based on the need to specify the phenomenon being studied.
The theoretical level of research in the science of international relations consists in
studying the most important features and regularities of the international system, which
presupposes examining the reality associated with it in an abstract form. That is precisely why in the theory of
international relations all the methods applied have a high degree of scientific abstraction.
In theoretical research, its conclusions and results are characterized by considerable
formalization, abstractness, and generalization.
Theorization – is a complex and multifaceted process, whose features are known to the
American scholar J. Rosenau, who identified nine principles:
1. The possibility of carrying out the process of theorization outside the framework of the theory
of international relations on the basis of general scientific methods and without using its
conceptual-categorical apparatus.
2. The differentiation of theories of international relations according to their functional
purpose. Among all theories, J. Rosenau distinguishes:
— empirical ones, which study, systematize, and interpret specific facts
of international life and are aimed at formulating generalizations;
— value-based ones, which are based on a certain worldview of the researchers and attempt to
explain a hypothetical model of international relations created on its basis;
— critical ones, which completely reject reality and try to find a satisfactory
alternative, in the opinion of their adherents.
3. The rationality of human activity in the sphere of international relations, consisting in
recognizing the non-randomness of the phenomena and processes occurring within it.
4. The specificity of theorization, consisting in generalization, abstraction, and
the search for cause-and-effect relationships.
5. Generalization, understood as the omission of details of a phenomenon in the course of research,
in order to create simplified models of reality, emphasizing its most essential features.
6. The non-absoluteness of theories, each of which attempts to derive a general rule, but,
taking into account the possibility of exceptions and anomalies, acknowledges scientific pluralism.
7. The need for a creative approach in research, which can be built both on
strict empiricism and on the researcher's imagination and intuition. In general, a theory must be flexible
and open to the interpretation of fundamentally new facts, which it must organically incorporate
and explain.
8. The stimulation of the theory's development by the natural curiosity of researchers. Each
new theory attempts to explain international relations exhaustively and consistently, which
leads to an expansion of knowledge about them.
9. The controversial nature of theory, which consists in the fact that any new theory is traditionally
criticized by representatives of other scientific schools, and its supporters and opponents
always become polarized in relation to it.
Examining the methodological problems of the theory of international relations, A. Linklater
divides all theoretical directions and concepts according to four basic criteria.
Above all, they are connected with the object of direct analysis and the scale of research.
From this standpoint, individual theories are distributed according to the questions of:
a) which participants or which phenomena should be given priority in the study of international
relations — nation-states, wars, international organizations, classes, transnational
corporations, state bureaucratic systems, the environment, or the persons who
shape foreign policy;
b) which characteristics and features of the global political process should be taken into
account — the preservation of power, effective management of the international system, the social
construction of the norms of international life, the improvement of diplomatic culture,
the exploitation of classes, or interdependence in relations between states;
c) what results are expected — the preservation of the existing system of states, an increase in
the level of interdependence among people in the world, the introduction of new forms of organization
of the political community, or a revolutionary transformation of the international order.
Focusing on one of the three levels of scientific analysis identified by K. Waltz in studying the causes of war:
the nature of the individual; the nature of the state and societies; the nature of
the international system — the researcher extrapolates them to the development of the entire international system
and, depending on their affiliation with one or another scientific school, grants individual participants
in international relations certain priorities and advantages. At the same time, the process of the emergence of new
knowledge in the theory of international relations is an epistemological question and is marked by a
high degree of abstraction.
Another substantial difference lies in the research goals that
representatives of different scientific schools set for themselves. Neorealists, for instance, argue that a deeper
understanding of the features of the contemporary international system aims at minimizing
conflict and avoiding wars between states on the international stage, while neoliberals see
their goal in the effective use of the opportunities of a market economy to achieve
a high standard of well-being for the citizens of each country and reducing the state's influence on the life of the
individual.
The third fundamental difference separates theories of international relations
according to the choice of a particular methodology of scientific research.
The fourth takes into account the affiliation of each theory with, or its separateness from, adjacent
scientific fields: political science, sociology, political philosophy, and the history of diplomacy.
To carry out analytical research, the following methodological
techniques are widely used:
— analogy, that is, an assumption about the structure and features of a certain unknown
phenomenon by adopting as such the parameters of already known phenomena;
— comparison — juxtaposing the known features of different phenomena in order to identify
what is common and what is different;
- interpolation - proposing a hypothesis about one of the elements of a phenomenon or one of the stages of a
process, based on the general parameters of the phenomenon or process;
— grouping individual elements of a phenomenon according to a certain criterion of commonality
that reflects their most essential features;
structuring, that is, identifying the elements of a phenomenon and the connections between them.
The synthetic method — is a way of conducting research by generalizing knowledge about the
features, properties, and interconnections of the elements of a phenomenon. This makes it possible to characterize
it as a whole. This method involves applying such methodological techniques as:
- generalization - identifying the common features and properties of phenomena and processes;
— extrapolation, which forms scientific ideas about the object of research by putting forward
the assumption that its features are the same as those of its elements. Abstraction consists in
identifying and generalizing the most important features of the object of research and consciously
omitting secondary ones. Abstraction is associated with such methodological techniques as:
— reduction, that is, reducing complex phenomena and processes of international life
to simpler ones that resemble them;
— formalization, which is the reflection of knowledge about reality in precise concepts and
statements that note the most important features of the international system.
The result of theoretical research is the formulation of an idealized object
of research, which is a scientific reflection of the real one. Such a mental operation is needed
in order to conduct research at the empirical level. The empirical level defines the parameters
and gives a general characterization of real international relations, which serves as the basis for
formulating their most important regularities. In general, the research methods that
are applied in the theory of international relations can be divided into general, explicative,
constructive, and predictive. General research methods combine the simplest techniques
and ways of studying international relations, which are characteristic not only of the theory of international
relations, but are also applied by practically all scientific disciplines.
Observation as a research method presupposes the subjective recording
of reality. In the process of observation, we are dealing with such elements as the subject, the object, and the means
of observation.
The subject of observation is the observer, who from their own standpoint perceives and records
certain situations and processes. Their standpoint is determined by their involvement in events, their interest in
their development and consequences, and the features of their worldview and awareness.
The object of observation is a specific situation taking shape in the international
environment at a certain time, recorded by the observer.
The means of observation – are the set of techniques and methods through which it
is depicted. A distinction is made between visual means, when the observer is a direct participant
in or eyewitness to the events, and reflexive means, when the observer characterizes events based on
the accounts of eyewitnesses or participants in those events.
Explicative methods — are a group of research techniques and methods that are
analytical in character and are distinguished by precision and specificity.
Such methods include content analysis, event analysis, cognitive mapping,
the indicator method, and the statistical method
Content analysis, according to the definition given by M. Khrustalev and K. Boryshpolets, is
a set of stages for studying official information materials.
Event analysis — is a method of processing public information that makes it possible to identify
and systematize actions in international relations
Cognitive mapping studies the concepts and categories used by the individuals
authorized to make decisions in the field of foreign policy. R. Snyder, H. Bruck,
B. Sapin, and later R. Jervis showed that the basis for decision-making by political figures
may be not so much reality itself as their perception of it.
The indicator method was introduced into the theory of international relations by B. Korany, who proposed
using a number of parameters he considered most important for the behavior of participants in
international relations. He identified four such indicators: the mode of diplomatic
representation, economic agreements, intergovernmental visits, and treaties.
The statistical method makes it possible to study "... the quantitative aspect of mass social phenomena
in inseparable connection with their qualitative content". It consists in determining the quantitative
parameters of phenomena and processes, their processing, analysis, and theoretical generalization.
The statistical method can be applied through a number of related methodological
techniques:
- reducing and grouping the empirical parameters of the international system and its structural units;
- structuring parameters in the form of tables, graphs, and cartograms;
- calculating indicators of the variation and dynamics of international phenomena and processes;
correlating parameters using mathematical correlation.
Constructive methods are associated with an idealized reproduction of reality, which gives
the researcher the opportunity to focus on the essential features of the object of research.
The experiment is aimed at verifying hypothetical statements
proposed by researchers. It is analytical in character and is connected with reality
only as its idealized reflection, consisting in an analytical reconstruction of reality and
its examination in dynamics and in comparison with the facts of actuality.
The systems method — is perhaps the most widespread and most thoroughly described in the
scientific literature. It should not be confused with the systems approach, since the approach is an
operational statement about the nature and content of international relations, while the method is its
practical application in actual research. J. Rosenau developed a somewhat
more detailed scheme that combines six levels of analysis of the international system:
1) individuals - the "makers" of policy and their characteristics;
2) the positions they hold and the roles they perform;
3) the structures of the government within which they act;
4) the society in which they live and govern;
5) systems of relations between national governments and other participants in international relations;
6) the world system (i.e., the global international system).
Modeling – is a method associated with the abstracted representation of real
situations of international life in the form of certain idealized objects, representing
systems, elements, and the connections between them
Such models contain three main elements: theoretical, methodological, and
constructive. Modeling in the theory of international relations is a way of constructing
phenomena and processes associated with them.
Predictive methods accumulate a group of research techniques and methods
widely used for scientific forecasting of future situations and processes in
international relations. These primarily include such methods as the Delphi method and
scenario building
The Delphi method is described in sufficient detail in the literature. It represents a
systematic and controlled discussion of a given situation by experts, who
predominantly belong to different schools of the theory of international relations.
Scenario building – is a method of constructing dynamic ideal models
of the probable development of international events. Based on the analysis of specific situations,
hypotheses are put forward regarding their course and further evolution, which cannot be subjected to any
preliminary verification.
In this case, the research is divided into five stages:
1) analysis and selection of the factors deemed, in the researcher's opinion, the main ones influencing the
situation;
2) formulation of hypotheses regarding the possible phases of the evolution of the selected factors over 10, 15, and
20 years;
3) comparison of the identified factors and, on this basis, the formulation of a number of hypotheses about probable future situations;
4) creation of probability indicators for the various previously proposed scenarios;
5) classification of scenarios of the development of events according to the criterion of their probability.
The conceptual-categorical system of any science plays an extremely important
role within it, since, on the one hand, it is a generalized model of the object of its research, and on the other
– it is its empirical toolkit, the basis for studying objective reality.
The first assertion is valid because a concept — is a generalized form of
reflection of the objects, processes, and phenomena of international relations, as well as
the most important connections between them. Such reflection is carried out through the fixation of
common and specific features of individual phenomena, as well as their interconnections. Categories
are the most general concepts of a given field of knowledge, of the philosophy of science, serving to
"condense" experience, to find relations between objects, and to break down and synthesize
reality.
All the concepts and categories used in the theory of international relations can be
divided into two groups:
1) general scientific concepts and categories, which have an instrumental character,
are applied systemically throughout the entire theory, since theorization is impossible without them;
2) operational concepts and categories, which have a theoretical-applied character and, due to
their differing interpretation by adherents of one or another paradigm of the essence of
international relations, either lose any scientific meaning or acquire a marginal
character outside a particular paradigm.
We will examine operational concepts and categories in Part 3 of the present work, in the context of the
scientific theories that rely on them. Regarding this group of concepts and categories, however, it is necessary
to dwell on some introductory remarks by Yu. Kukulka, who believes that each theory
has a unique categorical apparatus:
a) idealists or utopians apply such categories as law, freedom, democracy,
morality, the convergence of interests, international organization, and the natural aggressor;
b) realists use such concepts and categories as force - power, national
interests, objective conflict of interests, balance of power;
c) behaviorists (modernists) rely on such categories as behavior, state,
attributes, environment, decision-makers, system, field. J. Singer, in his taxonomy
of international relations, used such concepts and categories as boundary, function,
negative feedback, entropy;
d) post-behaviorists (postmodernists) focus on such concepts and
categories as international processes, decision-making, games, bargaining.
Common to all theories are only the categories of "international relations" and
"international environment", but since these fundamental categories are interpreted differently, separate conceptual-categorical systems arise from them. In each of them
their own unique categories are identified and defined, which are valid only within
a given paradigm. It is precisely for this reason that in contemporary theory of international relations
no unified system of concepts and categories has developed, but only a collection that can be understood as
a multitude of separate systems.
The theory of international relations cannot exist without a number of concepts and categories that
are applied primarily as tools for the process of theorization. Since this
process is practically the same for most theories, it is understandable that most of the concepts and
categories epistemologically originate from sciences close to it in subject matter — philosophy,
political science, and sociology. We have conditionally divided them into three groups depending on the specifics of their
application in the theory of international relations.
The first group consists of the concepts and categories used to define
individual parts of the theory or scientific stages of research
Problem (Gr. problema — task, difficulty) — a class of tasks requiring
a practical solution under nonstandard conditions, or a heuristic situation, connected with
ambiguity and the possibility of alternative solutions.
Hypothesis (Gr. hypothesis — basis, assumption) — a scientific assumption that
is put forward to explain some phenomenon of reality and requires verification through experience and
theoretical justification in order to become a reliable scientific theory.
Principle (Lat. principium – foundation) – a central explanation, feature,
laid at the basis of the creation or implementation of something. A principle is the foundation of theoretical
research, since accepting it in one form or another determines the further structure of
scientific inquiry and its results.
Paradigm (Gr. paradeigma – example, model) – a model of posing and
solving problems accepted by a particular scientific community, ensuring the existence of a
scientific tradition
In the theory of international relations, a paradigm is interpreted as: — a generalizing theory,
following from a number of concepts close in their principle of understanding the object of research; -
a logical explanation of international relations that can be used operationally, i.e.
in reality.
A paradigm consists of abstracted statements about the subjectivity, forms, and states
of international relations. A paradigm is a kind of reference solution to a research
problem. In the theory of international relations it plays the role of a formula. Instead of letter
symbols, it correlates abstracted statements which, once filled with specific
content, turn into an operational concept of activity in the international environment,
that is, a doctrine. A paradigm, on the one hand, is the most important result of theoretical
research, and on the other – an element of the general theory of international relations.
Concept (Lat. conceptio - perception) - a system of notions about certain phenomena,
processes; a way of understanding or interpreting certain phenomena; the basic idea of any theory.
A concept is understood as part of a theory that has a narrower meaning, since it reflects
a particular scientific idea. In the theory of international relations it has a predominantly
personified character, since it is based on the idea of a specific researcher.
The second group of concepts and categories has a general scientific character, but serves to
define phenomena and connections in the international environment.
Factor (Lat. factor — doer; from facio — I do) — a factor; a condition, a driving
force, the cause of some phenomenon or process. A factor is the engine of processes in international
relations which, depending on its specifics, can accelerate or slow, substantially
influencing their character and content.
Process (Lat. processus – forward movement) – a consecutive change of certain phenomena,
the course of the development of something. A process is a regular change of phenomena in international life,
conditioned by concrete historical causes (factors), which are also variable and have the
most diverse character: political, economic, military, socio-cultural,
etc. A process is movement from one situation in the international environment to another, from
simpler forms and kinds of international relations
towards more complex ones, from a smaller number of
subjects to a larger one, which does not have a straightforward character, but rather resembles cycles
of a spiral nature
System (combination, formation) - a set of certain elements between which
there exist regular connection and interaction.
The international system – is a regularly constructed structure with close
system-forming interconnections between its participants. Consequently, the elements of the system are, on the one
hand, the participants, and on the other – the relations between them.
The third group of concepts and categories is directly connected with international
relations, since they are applied to define a number of processes and phenomena.
Stability (Lat. stabilis – steady, stable) – constancy, invariability.
In the theory of international relations, this concept is applied in relation to:
— the state of the international system, when no fundamental changes occur over a long period
(the concept of status quo1 is also widely used for such a situation);
the character of a process, which can mean either the absence of change or gradual,
evolutionary, non-abrupt changes that, over a relatively long period, retain their
direction and character.
Confrontation (Fr. confrontation - comparison, opposition) - a standoff,
a clash, a struggle of convictions, opinions, social systems, aesthetic values, views,
prescriptions, etc.
Conflict (Lat. conflictus) – a clash, a struggle of opposing views; an extreme
exacerbation, misunderstanding; a dispute. Conflict is a logical continuation of confrontation,
a transition. That is, it becomes a situation in which what had been passive forms of struggle between international
subjects of relations turns into active ones. The standoff acquires clear, visible contours and is expressed in actions
that have an openly hostile character.
Transformation (Lat. transformatio) – a change, a transformation. In the theory of international
relations, it is used to mean gradual, abrupt changes in the hierarchy and
subordination of international systems.
Turbulence (Lat. turbulentus – stormy, disorderly, restless). In the theory
of international relations, it is used to define the state of international relations that
sets in following the rapid destruction of the international system, its structural, hierarchical
interconnections, and orientations
Orientation (Fr. orientation from Lat. oriens — east) — a direction of scientific, social, or
political activity. This concept denotes a persistent connection observed in the international
system between two of its participants, one of whom occupies a dominant position, while
the other – is subordinate. For the first of them, orientation is a stable direction of actions toward a group of
other participants or one of them, while for the second – it is a stable direction of subordination
to a stronger subject of international relations.
Dominant (Lat. dominans (dominantis) – ruling) – the main idea, the chief feature,
or the most important component part of something. A dominant is understood as the most important
factor directly influencing the state of international relations and their participants, or
as the most important among all the others, determining the behavior of participants or their groups.
Determinant (Lat. determinans (determinantis) — determining, limiting)
— a cause that is decisive for the emergence of a phenomenon. This category belongs to a type of
factor that predetermines certain changes in international relations.
The difference between a determinant and a dominant lies only in the fact that the latter is not
as rigid and imperative.
Constant (Lat. constans (constantis) — a permanent quantity). In the theory of international
relations, a constant refers to a factor that for a sufficiently long time or permanently
determines the character and content of international relations, their state and direction.
A constant is a relatively static concept that changes its character quite slowly.
Knowledge and operational command of the concepts and categories described above provide the
ability to conduct scientific research, draw conclusions, and make theoretical generalizations.
Diplomacy (from the Greek «diploma» - a document folded in two) — a means
of implementing foreign policy, domestic regulation by the state, and citizen diplomacy,
representing a set of nonmilitary practical measures, techniques, and methods
applied with regard to specific conditions and the nature of the tasks being solved; the official
activity of heads of state and government, foreign ministers, foreign affairs agencies,
diplomatic missions abroad and at home, delegations, and representatives of citizen
diplomacy at international conferences aimed at implementing the goals and objectives of a state's
foreign policy, protecting the rights and interests of the state, its institutions and citizens abroad and
at home.
Diplomacy is an extremely codified and formalized activity,
carried out on the basis of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.
The methods of implementing diplomacy are defined as the corresponding levers of influence on governments,
diplomatic representatives, and other persons of foreign states, who use and
apply globally effective diplomatic experience in conducting business relations between states
in order to achieve the tasks set before it.
At the present stage of development of diplomatic relations, the following main
methods and means of implementing diplomacy in the sphere of international relations are defined: ¾ official and
other visits and negotiations at the highest (summit) and high levels; ¾ diplomatic congresses,
conferences, meetings, and gatherings; ¾ the drafting of bilateral and multilateral international
treaties and other diplomatic documents; ¾ participation in the work of international organizations
and their bodies; ¾ the ongoing representation of the state abroad, carried out by its
embassies and diplomatic missions; ¾ diplomatic correspondence; ¾ the publication
of diplomatic documents; ¾ press coverage of the government's position on various
international issues.
The key task of diplomacy is the implementation of the state's foreign policy
activity with regard to the regulatory and legal norms of current international and
domestic legislation within clearly defined legal frameworks. The practical
implementation of diplomatic relations determines actions that may contradict the content
of international law and cannot be justified in the course of carrying out diplomatic
activity; however, a rupture in relations between diplomacy and international law is not
permitted.
The diplomatic service plays a significant role in shaping the foreign policy
vector and is one of the key elements in the sphere of public administration, for the role
of diplomacy, as an instrument of a country's foreign policy, has always been considerable.
1. Reveal the problem of method in the study of international relations.
2. Clarify the specific features of the theoretical and empirical levels of research.
3. Identify the concepts and categories of the theory of international relations.
4. Analyze the difficulties in forming a conceptual-categorical system.
5. Reveal the general scientific (instrumental) concepts and categories.
6. Characterize diplomacy as a means of regulating international relations.
Comments