Lecture
Objective: To analyze the essence and most important features of international relations and the special characteristics distinguishing domestic and international relations. To clarify the differences between the concepts of «participant», «actor», «partner», «factor», «side», and «subject of international law». To analyze the typology and functional features of the subjects of international
relations and the relationship between interest and goal
1. The essence of international relations.
2. The most important features of international relations.
3. The participants in international relations.
4. The typology and functional features of the subjects of international relations.
5. The interests and goals of the activity of participants in international relations.
The problem of defining international relations remains quite complex to this day,
as evidenced by the sharp scholarly debate surrounding it.
The concept of "international relations" was introduced into scholarly use by the English philosopher and
jurist J. Bentham (1748-1832), who first applied it in 1789 in the treatise "An Introduction
to the Principles of Morals and Legislation". With its help, he defined the relations
existing between monarchs and citizens of different states. Since then, scholarly ideas about the
essence of international relations have constantly expanded, each time incorporating new
spheres of public activity.
Even proceeding from such an understanding of the geographical dimension of reality, one can
clearly trace international relations in flows of goods, money, people, and zones
of military conflict, etc. International waters, straits, and air corridors are objectively distinguished and have clearly defined boundaries fixed
in international law.
In general, international relations cover the entire geographical space, since their
participants are located practically everywhere. Obviously, they (international relations)
are found, given their scale, at several geospatial levels. Among them
one can distinguish: the global, interregional, regional, subregional, and
local.
N. Spykman was the first to use the concept of "interstate relations" and defined it as
"relations between persons (or groups of persons) representing different states". From this
definition it follows that a necessary feature of international relations is that their participants are
politically affiliated with different states of the world. This idea was formulated quite precisely
also by Yu. Kukulka, who asserted that it is states themselves that "materialize the possibility
of considering... relations international". States, in this understanding, are not only political
structures of power, but are also perceived as complex social systems acting between one another
as such.
The well-known French researcher M. Merle even believes that international
relations are "a set of transactions and flows crossing borders or tending
toward crossing them". This observation can be considered correct, since states interact
with one another across the borders of nation-states, using the means of communication
and channels of information transfer available to them.
The first group brings together those who define international relations as "a set"
of actual relations between their participants". This definition is fairly popular in contemporary
scholarly thought, since it makes it possible to avoid a narrow view of international relations,
whose proponents traditionally tend to reduce them to a simple sum of national foreign
policies. Scholars who define international relations from this position proceed from the fact that
they are an integral combination of relations of a political, economic, ideological,
cultural, military, and other nature.
The scholar G. Shakhnazarov went even further, defining international relations as
"a set of integrative ties forming humanity". It is precisely for this reason, as
I. Kravchenko rightly notes, that international relations encompass all types of exchange of
activity that is the subject of relations between states.., down to individual
communication».
The second group of authors defines international relations as a forceful clarification of the interests
of states in the international environment, which is generally characteristic of the political tradition
of realism. Such definitions stem from the assertion of one of the classic thinkers of this theory, H.J.
Morgenthau, that states in international relations are governed by "interests defined in
terms of power".
Consequently, international relations are carried out on two levels. On one of them
relations occur between stronger and weaker participants in international relations, and
on the other – between "cells" of power. Such an understanding of international relations is characteristic not
only of the realist theory, but also of most contemporary scientific paradigms.
The third group of authors defines international relations as relations between decision-makers,
that is, persons who make foreign policy decisions, and the structures they
head. R. Snyder, H. Bruck, and B. Sapin put forward the idea that international relations
should be examined through the behavior of "those persons whose actions become the actions of the state".
International relations are complementary in nature, and it is therefore incorrect
to narrow them down to only one sphere of social activity — political, military,
economic, or any other. They encompass practically all types of human activity
— from economic exchanges to sporting competitions, which gives grounds for regarding them as a
special type of social relations.
Consequently, international relations — are a system of relations that arises and exists thanks to
process-based interactions between states, as well as other participants (subnational and
supranational).
International relations, as a specific social phenomenon, are defined by special
features that fundamentally distinguish them among other kinds of social relations. This concerns
a specificity whose definition makes it possible to clearly distinguish domestic from international
relations. Among these features, the following are predominantly distinguished:
Polycentrism – the absence, in international relations, of a legal (in this
sense, one fixed by international law) monopoly on power belonging to any
state or international organization. One of the most important principles in international law is
the principle of the sovereign equality of states, which consists in their equal rights and equal standing. In
the UN Charter (Art. 2, § 1) the following provision is fixed: "The Organization (the UN — Ed., auth.)
is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members". At the same time, it is traditionally
accepted that states, given their sovereignty, are legally equal and independent of one
another, and that "there is no presumption of a limitation on the independence of states".
This feature of international relations was already noted by J.-J. Rousseau, who considered
the main contradiction of the existence of humanity to be the fact that it functions simultaneously in two
states: the civil one, that is, within the framework of the state, where people's behavior is defined and
regulated by laws, and the natural one, where the behavior of states is not regulated by anything, and
only those restrictions and obligations that they voluntarily accept apply to them.
This feature of international relations is interpreted differently in contemporary theory.
J. Rosenau compared it to a kind of "Brownian motion", R. Aron called this
state "a pluralism of sovereignties", and R. Gilpin and R. Wendzel called it "anarchism".
The activity of the participants in international relations contains a significant element of
inconsistency, informality, and randomness, which gave J. Rosenau grounds
to note that it is easier to understand and describe the behavior of atoms than the actions of states on the
international stage.
Yu. Kukulka regards international relations as a social phenomenon in which "there is no
central core of power and governance, but rather polycentrism and polyarchy, within which a significant
role is played by spontaneous processes and subjective decisive factors.
Polyarchism, in his view, is understood not as chaos and imbalance
in international relations, but as a dialectical combination, within them, of the subjectivity and spontaneity of the actions
of states in their interactions with one another with the interdependence and regularity of the objective
relations between them.
The complexity of international relations is connected with the enormous number of participants
in international relations, which leads to the formation of a fairly complex structure of their
interactions. Within it there exist interconnected and mutually conditioned substructures: of participants, their
groups, and the relations between them.
International relations are, in fact, carried out by heterogeneous participants, each of whom
is guided by different interests and is engaged in fairly complex interactions with others. In the
international environment, the interests and actions of states, international organizations,
transnational corporations, individual groups of citizens, or even individual persons are intertwined, which
leads to the formation of extremely complex clusters of interactions between them.
The complexity of international relations also consists in the dialectical combination of spontaneity in
the actions of their individual participants with the regular character of the relations that ultimately form
between them.
The systemic nature of international relations follows from the interconnected and
mutually conditioned functioning of the participants and the relations between them. The participants in
international relations exist in stable interactions with one another and with the international
environment, which leads to the emergence and functioning of the international system.
The global character of international relations consists in the fact that all the states of the world,
organizations, social groups, or individual persons participate in them directly or indirectly.
The international system acquired the features of a global one at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
By that time, the interconnection of all the components of the historical
process and of the system of international relations had reached a global scale. A qualitative change occurred, since for the first time the system
of international relations became global".
Contemporary international relations encompass the entire world, as evidenced not only by the fact that the
overwhelming majority of the sovereign states of the world participate in the activity of the UN and other
international organizations, but also by the processes of globalization and integration of the world economy,
and the rapid development of global information networks, etc. Thanks to the development of
economic ties and effective communications, the contemporary world can be regarded as a
whole, since no individual or society can exist in it in isolation. As
the history of the 20th century shows, even those states that tried to adhere to autarky were still
forced to take the international environment into account or, at the very least, to respond to the actions of other
states.
Thus, globality can be considered a feature that substantially distinguishes international
relations from all other kinds of social relations that exist within the national
territories of states and are limited by state borders.
Q. Wright believes that the causes of international conflicts "should be sought not in the mutual
claims of states against one another, but in their internal structures, conflicts, and policies...".
Classical, or orthodox, Marxism rather rigidly determines international
relations, regarding them as derivative of internal social (above all, economic)
relations. This position stems from the interpretation, by K. Marx and F. Engels, of the state,
whose domestic and foreign policy is subordinated to the interests of the domination of
the exploiting classes.
H. Kissinger expressed his view on the dilemma of the dependence between domestic and foreign
policy in the article "Domestic Structure and Foreign Policy". He argued that, in the eyes of a
country's political elite, the domestic structure of society is regarded as a given, from which
foreign policy properly begins. However, in his view, such an approach can
be applied only in stable periods of history, since at such times there is no fierce struggle
and political rivalry between the countries of the world. Under conditions of an imbalance in the international
system, pressure from the international environment on a particular state or group of states can lead
to a substantial increase in the significance of foreign policy and its influence on the actions of the government
in the domestic environment.
Formulating the main principles of political realism, H. Morgenthau wrote:
"Realists note the autonomy of the political sphere, whereas economists, lawyers,
and moralists assert the opposite". By this he denied the rigid determination of
foreign policy by any other sphere of human activity, including the economic one.
Realists regard economic interest as one of the most important elements
of the national interest by which a state is guided in the international environment, but this does not
give grounds to equate the two or to speak of the predominance of economics over politics. R.
Aron aptly observed: "The economic system in various respects slips out of the
interstate one: more precisely, thanks to their policies, states contribute to shaping
economic policy; however, since it is unevenly determined by states depending on the
weight of each of them, it forms a system distinct from the interstate one, which should be
classified as transnational rather than interstate or even international".
Politics and economics, as separate spheres of society's activity, are based on
their own systems of interests and goals of activity, subjects of action, and even fundamentally different
ambitions that motivate people to be active in politics and economics. However, these spheres
are interconnected, since economic activity cannot develop successfully without
political support and legal guarantees from the state, while the state cannot be
powerful, and consequently politically influential, without a developed economy. In particular, S.
Huntington proposes examining international relations through the prism of interactions between
national cultural spaces, with conflicts — as derivative of the contradictions
caused by the influence of world cultures on broad segments of the population. J. Dougherty and R. Pfaltzgraff believe that cultural pluralism influences international relations
in a way that is difficult to precisely define and study. Cultural pluralism
is also observed at the domestic level, where the differentiation of cultural spaces
and the values associated with them can also be quite significant.
Information dependence is understood as the determination of actions in the international environment
by the informational provision available to decision-makers (i.e., persons who make political decisions).
The impact of the informational provision of decision-making in the sphere of foreign policy
is enormous, but this also applies to any other sphere of social relations, where
persons authorized to make decisions respond to information that reflects
reality.
The concept of "participant" is one of the most important in the theory of international relations,
since it expresses a generalized characterization of the social units that actually
act. Certain units enter into and interact with one another in international relations,
characterized by the fact that:
— their activity in the sphere of international relations is conditioned by their own practical
needs and the interests arising from them;
- they are a source of functional activity directed at others like themselves;
– similarly, they themselves become objects of the activity of other social units.
Guided by their own interests, participants enter into interaction with one another, that is,
into international relations. The concept of "participant" is fairly widely used in the theory of
international relations to define any social unit that, in one way or
another, participates in interactions with others, regardless of their active or passive
character.
Practically identical in content is the concept of "actor", most often used by Western
researchers of international relations: J. Rosenau, J. Dougherty, B. Russett, H. Starr, Yu.
Kukulka, and R. Zięba, and recently also employed by Russian scholars P. Tsygankov
and K. Gadzhiev. B. Russett and H. Starr regard the origin of this concept as
the result of W. Shakespeare's brilliant analogy, who compared life to a theater and people to actors
playing certain roles.
J. Rosenau defines an actor as an entity influencing world processes. F. Bariar and
M. R. Djalili interpret this concept even more broadly, defining an actor as any person
who plays a significant role in international relations. Sometimes, as a variant of it, the
concept of "player" is used, widely practiced in game theory, where international relations
are regarded as the result of the interaction of two or more strategies.
In the theory of international relations, however, there is no unambiguous interpretation of the concepts
of "participant" or "actor", nor do all scholars use a recognized term that succinctly
delineates it. Researchers of international relations most often operate with the concepts of "partner",
"factor", and "side".
"Partner" is applied to define participants in international relations who, in one
way or another, cooperate with one another. On the one hand, this concept has proven to be fairly
precise, but on the other — narrow, because it applies to participants in international relations
only in the case of constructive cooperation between them.
"Factor" as a concept in international relations has an applied character,
meaning that participant who, in one way or another, influences or even determines their character and content.
It was used above all by G. Shakhnazarov, F. Burlatsky, and A. Galkin.
"Side" – a concept used above all in the works of E. Haliżak and R.
Zięba, has a connotative character, defining the distinction only of those participants
in international relations between whom they occur.
In scholarly understanding, the concept of "subject" is preferably defined as the bearer of
substantive-practical activity... a source of activity directed at an object or, more broadly,
as a person, an organized group of persons, a social, ethnic, or political community, a society,
carrying out the activity inherent to them. That is, the subject in international relations can
be a particular social unit that is active in relation to another — passive one.
"Object" is understood differently in international law. The widely used concepts "subject
of international law" and "subject of international relations", despite their
closeness, are not identical. Every subject of international law is a subject of international
relations, but some of the latter do not possess international legal personality. A subject of
international law, according to the definition of I. Lukashuk, is "an independent entity which, owing to
its capabilities and legal features, is able to possess rights and
obligations under international law, and to participate in the creation and implementation of its
norms".
The main attributes of a subject of international law are legitimacy, the right
to conclude international agreements, the capacity for independent action, and responsibility for
violations of the norms of international law. It follows from this that the most important features
of international legal personality are sovereignty, legal capacity, and responsibility for the consequences of
actions in relation to other subjects. Only independent states possess these features in full,
and in international law they are traditionally considered primary, while all other subjects are
considered derivative.
Among the subjects of international law, a distinction is made between:
1. States, which are the primary subjects, since they possess all the attributes
necessary for recognition as subjects of international law. It is generally accepted that
a sovereign state is characterized by three elements: legitimate public authority,
territory, and population.
States can exist:
- de facto – when public authority effectively controls the state
territory and the population living on it, but it has not been recognized by the international community;
– de jure – the state is recognized by the international community. The authority
of sovereign states should possess the features of both categories, since the first concerns
their actual existence, while the second – concerns their legal right to interact with others like themselves.
A state cannot actually exist without territory, which, on land, at sea, and in
airspace, is delimited from other states by a state border. Within its own
territory, a sovereign state's national law is recognized as having priority, while individual
international legal acts apply only with its voluntary consent.
States under a protectorate are characterized by limited legal personality,
since the functions of their international representation are predominantly performed by the
protecting state.
A colony is not considered a subject of international law, since colonial
public authorities are subordinate to the authorities of the metropole.
2. State or specific political entities, such as the Vatican or free
cities, which acquire international legal personality on the basis of agreements concluded by
states interested in their formation.
Krakow, Danzig, and Trieste were declared free cities at various times, the
defining legal acts for which were the treaties establishing them and statutes specially developed
for them.
The Vatican became a subject of international law in 1929, on the basis of a concordat
concluded between Italy and the Holy See. In international law, the legal
personality of the Vatican is regarded as pertaining to its status as the seat of the international center
of the Catholic Church, rather than to itself.
3. International organizations, whose legal personality is considered derivative of
that of states and arises from the agreements by which they are created. Within the
statute developed by the interested states, they are characterized by legality, and possess the right
to conclude international agreements, to hold privileges and immunities, to lodge claims, and to be a party
in international legal proceedings.
4. Peoples fighting for their independence ("in statu nascendi"), seeking
by armed force to also form their own national state. Their legal personality is
transitional in nature, since from the moment their state is created and recognized by the international
community, it will be regarded as a full-fledged subject of international
relations. Their status is defined by the additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949,
relating to the victims of international armed conflicts, adopted on June 8, 1977. In Art.
1, § 4 of the protocol, conflicts in which peoples fight against colonial domination, foreign
occupation, and racist regimes in the exercise of their right to self-determination are singled
out among all others.
In statu nascendi entities must be characterized by the following features:
— a defined territory on which the creation of a sovereign state is envisaged;
— the existence of organs of political leadership supported by the population
living in that territory;
— the existence of formations conducting an armed struggle for independence and
observing the international law of war (as reflected in the Hague and Geneva
Conventions);
– the subordination of armed formations to political authorities.
Recognition, by the international community, of nations fighting for independence
as subjects of international law is, as a rule, associated with considerable difficulties and
controversy.
Transnationalism — a scholarly direction within the theory of international relations, which
examines the problem of subjectivity from the standpoint of recognizing the fact of the pluralism and equal standing
of heterogeneous subjects. Its emergence is connected, above all, with the concept
of the American political scientist J. Rosenau, as well as with the works of K. Kaiser, J. Nye, R.
Keohane, E. Morse, and many others who shared and developed his views on
international relations in the second half of the 20th century.
In particular, J. Rosenau put forward the idea of a bifurcation (splitting in two) of international
relations, which began to manifest itself in the second half of the 20th century.
Bifurcation consists in the simultaneous coexistence of two loosely connected
interstate relations, carried out by the classical means of diplomacy and military
force, and non-state relations, in which completely different subjects interact and are guided by entirely
different considerations.
B. Russett and H. Starr define subjectivity somewhat differently, using the concept of "actor".
They distinguish three types of international actors:
1) groups of people (peoples, nations, nationalities, ethnic groups);
2) states;
3) non-state actors (intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, multinational
corporations).
The typology and functional features of the subjects of international relations
International relations are based on the interactions of an enormous number of participants,
each of whom is guided by their own interests and motivations.
The specifics of their participation in the processes taking place in the international environment
directly depend on the type of participant. Given this, it is possible to determine the boundaries
of functional activity and the peculiarities of the activity of participants in international relations.
The typology of participants in international relations is the subject of fairly serious controversy between
state-centrists (statists) and transnationalists. It concerns not so much
the identification and definition of types of active participants in international relations (subjects),
as the relationship between them.
However, the assertion that states, international organizations, and social groups can be
considered participants in international relations does not give rise to particular debate.
Much more rarely, individuals are also added to them, who are predominantly understood as
decision-makers, that is, persons who make decisions on behalf of one or another social structure.
The concept of "individual", defining a personified subject, is borrowed from
private international law. In legal science, this concept characterizes a person who is a
subject of law, that is, is in certain relationships with foreign citizens,
is characterized by legal capacity, and is guided by norms of law.
In the theory of international relations, an individual is recognized as a person whose actions
give rise to certain consequences in the international environment. The most widespread view of
the features and role of the individual in international relations is its interpretation as a decision-maker in the sphere of
foreign policy or foreign economic activity. In this case, persons
initiate and bring about the implementation of certain actions in the international environment, but at the same time
become their object.
Among the persons actively acting in international relations, political
persons (homo politicus) are distinguished. They are understood as public politicians authorized to
make and implement decisions in the sphere of a state's external relations. That is, their competence
in decision-making concerns not only foreign policy problems, but also any others
connected with the interests of citizens in the international environment.
It follows from this that a political person is not only a politician who, in one
way or another, struggles for power in order to implement their own program of action, but also a state official
who is obliged to specify and carry out those actions. In a broad sense,
a political person can be considered a person authorized to make and implement
decisions connected with the interests of society in the international environment.
One of the first to distinguish the concept of political person from the concept of individual was N.
Machiavelli. He asserted: "There are two ways of attaining an end: the way of law and the way
of violence; the first way is human, the second – that of wild animals; and since the first
way does not always succeed, people sometimes resort to the second. Rulers must be able
to use both ways". Political persons, unlike all others, cannot
automatically observe the moral principles on which relations between people in
society are built, since fairly often they have to confront political opponents
who are not governed by them.
A politician, according to Weber, must build their activity on affirming to
themselves a simple truth: "You must, by applying force, resist evil, or else you will
be answerable for allowing evil to prevail".
The political person, in H. Morgenthau's interpretation, differs substantially from any
other: "Political realism is based on a pluralistic conception of human nature.
The real person consists of an "economic man", a "political man", a "moral
man", a "religious man", etc. "Political man" is like an animal, because he
has no moral restraints".
The psychological characteristic of the political person looks as follows: Pp = p}d}r, where Pp —
political person; } — sign of transformation; r – individual motives of activity; d -
transfer to the sphere of public activity; r - rationalization of individual motives
of activity in political categories
F. Bariar and M. R. Djalili identified four possible models
for this type of political system.
1. The rational model is based on the determination of influence in the system by a single
political leader guided by rational national interests. In their
system of values, these occupy the determining place, while they regard individual interests
as secondary. The political leader coordinates and directs the activity of various
bureaucratic structures in carrying out a foreign policy that meets
national interests.
2. The bureaucratic model exists when specific decisions are made and
implemented by state bodies and institutions in accordance with established routine
procedures. In this model, the role of the subjective factor is reduced to a minimum, since
the main actor is the state official acting within the competences assigned
to them by law.
3. The "bargaining" model is a manifestation of internal political struggle among members of the
bureaucratic hierarchy, waged by the heads of individual bodies and institutions for
priority in the decision-making process or in order to defend their own departmental interests. In
this model, the subjective factor is fairly significant, since decisions are made in the course of a
complex game between political persons and their opinions, ideas, and concepts.
4. The reductionist model is expressed in the simplification and breaking down of the problems
facing society and the differentiation of their solutions within individual state
institutions and organizations. In this model, the role of the political person is reduced to carrying out
administrative-executive functions, while real decisions are made at lower
levels of power.
In studying the process of political decision-making in the USA, G. Allison and A. George
concluded that, besides the individual political person, the content of a decision is influenced by the entire
organizational system of power. In their view, the system of power can be represented in
the form of two models: the bureaucratic and the advocacy model.
1. The bureaucratic model is a complex, multilevel aggregate of
interconnected government agencies and services, characterized by profound
decentralization. The decisions made within such a system are the result of internal
struggle and bargaining, ending in complex compromises between individual
bureaucratic structures.
2. The advocacy model, described in detail by A. George, consists in the fact that, within
the system of power, two main organizational centers are distinguished:
1) the decision-making center (DMC), in whose activity the determining role is played by
the principal decision-maker and their entourage;
2) government structures, which in their relations with the DMC are represented by their leadership.
Decisions in this system are made as a result of the leadership of individual government
structures putting forward and defending particular optimal courses of action (options). The role of the DMC consists in
comparing the options and choosing the best one (from the DMC's point of view). It follows from this that the role of an individual
political person in the advocacy system of power is fairly substantial.
An important role as subjects of international relations is played not only by politicians, but also by
any well-known persons who enjoy authority and whose opinions are heeded. They
predominantly hold no state positions, but possess such great authority
that they compel even heads of state to take their opinion into account. P. Tsygankov considers such a person
to be, in particular, the great scholar and human rights advocate A. Sakharov, who "...thanks to
the authority he enjoyed both among the state leaders of many countries and
among democratic public opinion, exerted a considerable influence on the West's attitude toward the USSR".
"The subjects of relations in private international law are, above all, natural and
legal persons, and sometimes — states". Private international law is based on the idea
of regulating the actions of individuals or their organized groups and legal responsibility for
their consequences. Every person, according to Art. 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, regardless of the state in which they reside, has the right to recognition of their
legal personality.
In contemporary theory of international relations, the understanding of social groups is fairly
vague and unclear. The disputes concern both the formal features of this type of participant
and their influence on international relations.
In our view, social groups should be examined at two levels of their organization:
1) as a set of individuals who are stakeholders in a particular sphere;
2) as a social organization created by individuals to satisfy their
common needs and interests.
In the first case, social groups influence foreign policy through
public opinion, while in the second — through their organizational structures lobbying for their
interests.
P. Tsygankov divides the participants in international relations into state, non-state, and
other. Among the latter he includes "national liberation movements, separatist,
irredentist movements, mafia groups, terrorist organizations, regional and
local administrations, and individuals.
Subnational participants in international relations are "all private
domestic subjects that act actively in the international environment without the
mediation and participation of governments". In her view, these are individuals, creative unions, social groups
and their organizations (political parties, cultural organizations, professional unions, etc.), foundations,
press agencies, and tourism and manufacturing enterprises.
In our view, a more successful classification might be one built on the conditions of the
group's sphere of activity. Each social group, entering into interaction in the international
environment, has a specific goal relating to one or another sphere of human activity.
According to this criterion, a distinction is made between:
1. Ethnic groups, related or identical, but settled in different states. These groups
consist of ethnically homogeneous persons who maintain regular relations with one another.
Ethnic groups may create cultural and political organizations for
realizing their interests. Ethnic groups well known in international relations include the
Kurds, Arabs, and Koreans.
2. Religious groups, consisting of co-religionists residing within different
states or subordinate to confessional centers of foreign origin. The feature
distinguishing such groups is the shared religion professed by their members. The interests that
guide their activity in international relations consist, above all, in
supporting their fellow believers and maintaining broad contacts with their organized communities.
3. Professional groups, consisting of workers in various branches of
social production or the service sector, or persons who, given their professional
competences, are obliged to engage in international affairs. Such groups have a non-state
character and act in the international environment guided by their own interests.
In the first case, workers, in order to protect their rights and interests, create
unions, which are the organizational structures representing them.
Professional unions enter into international relations for two reasons:
1) to exchange information and work experience with similar unions across
the border;
2) through the foreign origin of employers (for example, the owners and managers of
multinational corporations)
In the other case, we are speaking of organizations that interact with those like themselves,
mainly in the field of international information. A necessary condition for the functioning of
information and press agencies — is to establish and maintain relations for exchanging
information with similar foreign structures.
4. Cultural groups - organized associations of individuals working in the field of
culture who enter into international relations guided by their professional
interests.
5. Political groups, uniting conscious and active citizens who seek
to legally influence national power structures or to control their activity.
Citizens create political parties, movements, and groupings, which are
organizational structures authorized to express and realize their group political
interests. Political parties enter into international relations predominantly with those similar (or
identical) to them in political platform, ideological orientation, etc. In addition,
political groups can enter into international relations indirectly, through influence on
the foreign policy of their governments, seeking from them decisions that correspond to their
position, ideology, or interests.
Anti-state movements and terrorist organizations can also be considered specific
political groups. They have quite distinct political interests, but
try to realize them through armed violence or terror.
Despite numerous attempts to formulate a clear definition of the concepts
"terrorist" organization or "terrorism", unambiguous and consistent definitions have still
not been created.
The concept of "terror" (from the Latin terror - fear, horror) has, since ancient times, meant
the brutal physical reprisal against political opponents, whose purpose has always been
to intimidate society and compel it to certain actions, or, conversely, to inaction
(for example, to submission to a new authority).
The concept of "terrorism" was first used at the third conference of the International Association of
Criminal Law (Brussels, 1930). Since then, about a thousand
scholarly works have been published on this subject, proposing about 200 different variants of its understanding. In
most definitions, the most important elements of terrorism are emphasized — violence,
fear, threat, and the political motives of such actions.
Over the past thirty years, constant attempts have been made under the aegis of the UN
both to give a legal definition of terrorism and to create a corresponding mechanism for the interaction
of states in combating its manifestations. After the tragic events at the Olympic Games
in Munich (FRG) in 1972, a special ad hoc committee on international
terrorism was created, whose task was to give a legal definition of this phenomenon. However, within a
few years it became clear that the problem of its definition lay more in the political than
the legal plane. The "stumbling block" became the problem of member states' differing understanding
of the concept of "national liberation movement", which reflected absolutely
opposite points of view on the international legal personality of entities in statu nascendi.
The committee's activity achieved only partial success, that is, several
international conventions were prepared, along with a number of draft resolutions of the UN General Assembly and Security
Council relating to the problem of international terrorism. The International Law Commission,
at the request of the UN General Assembly, carried out preparatory studies with a view to
developing an International Code for the Peace and Security of Mankind. In its fourth report (1986), a
definition of acts of terror was given, which, in the Commission's view, cover actions aimed at:
1) the killing, or infliction of grave bodily harm, or deprivation of liberty of a head of
state, their representatives, family members, or persons performing political functions;
2) the destruction of or damage to public property, endangering the lives of members of society,
creating an atmosphere of fear, as well as authorizing or facilitating the production of weapons, ammunition,
and other dangerous substances and their transfer to persons committing the aforementioned crimes.
In 2000, the ad hoc committee also developed a more or less clear definition of the criteria for
terrorist crimes of an international character. According to the committee's special
report, crimes are recognized as such when committed:
— on the territory of more than one state;
— in one state, provided that part of the preparations for them were carried out on the territory of
another (or others);
— where the direction, guidance, planning, and control of their execution are carried out from
the territory of other states;
— in one state, but the act is committed by an international terrorist group;
— in one state, but its consequences provoked a negative reaction in other
states.
Such political groups maintain close relations with one another, and moreover, their
activity is capable of substantially complicating political relations between states.
In particular, the US regards certain states of the world as harboring, on their
territory, and providing assistance to terrorists — this concerns above all Iraq, Libya,
Afghanistan, and Somalia, whose relations with the US are extremely tense and explosive.
6. Economic groups are associations of citizens formed to carry out
economic activity in the production and non-production spheres.
The determining interest uniting persons in such groups is the desire to obtain
profit from their activity, which in the international environment is explained by the possibility of
obtaining higher profits as a result of economic interactions with foreign partners rather than with
domestic ones. Another important reason for entering into international relations is
the desire to participate in the exploitation of natural resources that are scarce or absent within
certain countries. The structural form of the organization of economic groups is manufacturing and
trading enterprises engaged in export-import operations, joint
ventures, and transnational corporations (TNCs).
TNCs are legal entities registered in their country of origin that carry out
active economic activity beyond its borders. At the end of the 20th century, there were more than 10,000
TNCs and about 26,000 of their foreign subsidiaries, and the leaders in the world economy were:
"Exxon", "Royal Dutch Shell", and "General Motors", whose combined profit amounted to
more than 260 billion US dollars annually. By the beginning of the 21st century, about half of direct
foreign investment was accounted for by a hundred of the most powerful corporations. In 1996, the value of their assets amounted to about 4.1 trillion US dollars, of which almost 40% was
invested abroad.
TNCs are distinguished by their influence and significance, connected with the scale of their
activity. According to data from the US Central Intelligence Agency, cited by J.
Lee Ray, in 1984 the combined profit of the most powerful TNC, "Exxon", amounted to 90.8 billion
US dollars, which was almost three times the gross national product of Greece and 4.5
times that of Egypt. They are the most important subject of international relations, since
their international production character is the foundation of contemporary international economic
relations.
The state, as an institution representing the collective interests of its citizens, their groups, and
organizations, is traditionally considered in theory to be the most important participant in international
relations.
First, the state is an organized social group to which
all other social groups, as well as individuals, are subordinate, and their belonging to the state has a
compulsory character.
Second, the state is the main element of international relations, as well as
the most influential and dynamic participant in them. All other participants act with its
mediation or, at the very least, with its consent, expressed in some situations and,
in others — tacit.
Third, interstate relations are the foundation of contemporary international relations.
The state, as a subject of international law, has exclusive jurisdiction over all
natural or legal persons located on its territory. It possesses all
the necessary means and capabilities for establishing and maintaining control over
the activity of people and public groups within its own locality.
The content of the concept of "state" is predominantly regarded as a combination of three
main elements: territory, population, and power.
Territory – is a part of land, adjacent waters, and the airspace above them,
delimited from others by a state border.
Population - is the set of people permanently residing within the state
territory. From a legal point of view, most of a state's population are citizens, possessing
all the rights and responsibility for the consequences of their actions provided for by its constitution.
Sovereign power is understood as the independence of the activity of the system of
political-administrative institutions, which perform managerial functions with respect to the
population within the state territory.
The sovereignty of power consists in the fact that it can "make decisions and
resolve disputes within the political hierarchy to a certain degree and finally.
The ability to make such decisions presupposes independence from external forces and
superiority and dominance over internal groups".
The features of the sovereignty of power are:
— localization of central authority, that is, recognition of its superiority within the political-legal
hierarchy;
— finality — defining it as the last or final instance in the process of
making political decisions;
— universality, understood as recognition of the superiority of its competences in any
sphere of society's activity;
- autonomy, that is, independence from any internal or external subjects of
policy.
The Polish researcher I. Słomczyńska proposes distinguishing four understandings of contemporary
sovereignty:
1) interconnected sovereignty, relating to the ability of a state
to control the mutual movement of goods, services, capital, and persons across a shared border;
2) internal sovereignty concerns the ability of state institutions to independently
regulate the behavior of subnational subjects;
3) external sovereignty means excluding the possibility of influence by any
supranational political structures (both in the legal and in the functional
sense);
4) legal sovereignty relates to states' recognition of one another as free and
equal.
Given these elements, it is quite appropriate to define the state as a sovereign
territorial-political organization, within whose geographical boundaries an independent
political structure functions that is an active subject of international relations. Its subjectivity
follows from the fact of its formation, while the ability to establish diplomatic and consular
relations with other states, to conclude treaties, to make use of international
courts and arbitration in its own interests, and to participate in international organizations — follows from the fact of recognition.
In the practice of interstate relations, three regimes of state recognition are applied:
de jure, de facto, and, with a certain degree of approximation, one can speak of ad hoc.
De jure — is the full recognition of a state as a subject of international law, testifying to
its perception by other states of the world as an equal and capable partner.
The result of this type of recognition is the establishment of diplomatic relations between states
and the conclusion of political, military, economic, and other agreements and treaties.
De jure recognition is retroactive, that is, it automatically confers legal status on all
legal acts or actions adopted up to the point of recognition. The overwhelming majority of contemporary states
of the world mutually recognize one another, on the basis of which normal relations between them
are maintained and developed. At the same time, states unrecognized by the international
community have long existed, such as the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, the Republic of
Ichkeria, Abkhazia, the Turkish Republic of Cyprus.
De facto recognition is treated in international public law in a rather peculiar and unclear way,
since it does not involve any legally clear procedure of recognition.
Ad hoc recognition is understood as recognition on the occasion of a particular situation. That is, states which
do not legally recognize each other are, in certain situations, forced to enter into relations with
one another. Israel, during the war of 1982 in Lebanon, repeatedly negotiated with an enemy
whom it did not and still does not recognize, in order to stop hostilities and achieve a truce.
One of the defining principles of international public law is the equality
of the states of the world, which is enshrined in the UN Charter (Art. 2, § 1) and is a norm of contemporary international
relations that many researchers emphasize and uphold. The discrepancy
between the reality of political relations between states and the declared principle of law is so
obvious that the American scholars B. Russett and H. Starr rather sharply noted: "All
states are legally equal (but some are more equal than others)".
As follows from statistical data, 75% of the entire
population of the planet lives in 23 countries of the world (China, India, the USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Nigeria, Mexico, Germany, Vietnam, the Philippines, Iran, Turkey, Thailand,
Great Britain, Italy, France, Egypt, Ukraine, Ethiopia); 75% of all goods and services are produced in 15 states (the USA, Japan, China, India, Germany, Russia, France,
Great Britain, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, Spain, the Republic of Korea).
M. Kaplan proposed distinguishing between superpowers and great states, medium
states, small states, and micro-states.
Superpowers, in his understanding, meet three criteria, such as:
1) the capacity for mass destruction on a planetary scale, owing to the possession of
nuclear warheads and powerful means of delivering them;
2) the capacity to influence the conditions of existence of all humanity;
3) the impossibility of suffering defeat in a war with any coalition of states, if it
does not include another superpower.
Great states exert significant influence, but do not dominate in international relations;
their influence, as a rule, manifests itself at the level of a particular region in which they are
leading.
Medium states exert influence in their immediate surroundings and are quite independent in
their foreign and domestic policy.
Small states possess the ability to preserve sovereignty and territorial integrity
by their own means.
Micro-states are entirely dependent on the policies of other states of the world, since they are not
in a position to ensure their own sovereignty. I. Popiuk-Rysinska, using the criterion
of the capacity for effective activity in the international environment, distinguishes superpowers
and states.
She proposes distinguishing three types of superpowers:
1) universal, capable of acting on a global scale and in all spheres of international
relations;
2) sectoral, capable of activity on a global scale, but only in a particular sphere
of international relations (military, economic, cultural, etc.);
3) regional, capable of action within the framework of a particular region.
In our view, in international relations several groups of states can be fairly clearly
distinguished, differing in their degree of influence on global, regional, or local
public processes. As criteria for such a ranking, one can choose the ratio of the influence
of a state on the international environment to the influence that it exerts on it.
The first criterion is connected with the idea of S. Rosen and K. Holsti that international
relations are determined by the ratio of the pressure of the international environment on a state and
the pressure that it exerts on it.
The second criterion is quite understandable and has been developed in the scientific research
of geopoliticians, who predominantly understand the sphere of influence as part of the geographic space
where the foreign-policy activity of a given state prevails.
According to these criteria, three ranks of states can be distinguished:
I. Superpowers, given the power they have accumulated, occupy the highest
rank in the hierarchy and dominate in the international system, having exceptional strategic positions in
world or
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 4. International Relations as a Social-Historical Phenomenon
Часть 2 - 4. International Relations as a Social-Historical Phenomenon
Comments