Lecture
Goal: To reveal the structural features of international relations and the typological structure of
international relations. To analyze the states of world politics: the state of peaceful
coexistence, the state of confrontation, the state of conflict, and the functions of diplomacy and the forms of
diplomatic activity. To compare the features and specifics of international economic
relations, international relations in the sphere of culture, and international relations in the sphere of
information. To characterize the forms of international relations.
1. The typological structure of international relations.
2. Foreign policy relations.
3. International economic affairs.
4. International relations in the field of culture.
5. International relations in the field of information.
6. Forms of international relations.
The typological structure of international relations encompasses a number of specific interactions between
their participants, each of which is connected to a distinct sphere of human activity, relatively
separate from the others. Among the types of international relations, one traditionally distinguishes
foreign policy and foreign economic relations, and, beginning in the second half of the 20th century, also
relations in the field of culture and information.
Foreign policy relations between states are predominantly placed at the top of the hierarchy, given
the idea of the generalizing nature of politics.
Political relations are also defined rather vaguely, and sharp debate continues
regarding their nature and features to this day.
Foreign policy and the relations associated with it have been studied the most
in the theory of international relations. This followed from the predominance within it of statist theories, and also
from the fact that the theory of international relations was formed under the strong influence of political science
(especially in the 1950s–60s). However, the concept of foreign policy, like the concept of
politics in general, remains highly debatable.
The foreign policy of a state can be viewed as the general course and activity of its
political leadership in international relations, aimed at realizing certain
interests and goals of its own through a system of interactions with other participants in international relations.
Foreign policy, compared with domestic policy, has a distinct specificity, since it is realized
in the international environment, whose features determine its content and forms.
Activity in the international environment contains a significant element of chance and
unpredictability, requiring a high degree of professionalism from decision-makers.
Despite the enormous weight of research on foreign policy, its interpretation
and definition still present considerable difficulties.
1. Foreign policy follows from domestic policy, since it is a manifestation of one of the two
most important functions of sovereign national power – the external one.
Domestic legislation, since the goals and principles of foreign policy are formulated by
the national parliament, while the government implements it.
2. Foreign policy becomes autonomous from domestic policy because of its distinct specificity.
This assertion follows from the fact that the internal and external environments of the
state are not identical. The former is — centralized and subject to the sovereign authority of national state
institutions, while the latter is — decentralized and independent.
The degree of a state's adaptation to the environment in which other similar actors operate, each of which
is guided predominantly by its own interests.
3. Foreign policy exists in parallel with domestic policy, since it follows from
external state interests that are not identical to internal ones.
4. Foreign policy differs fundamentally from domestic policy because it
uses entirely different means and methods.
In the 18th–19th centuries the concept of "foreign policy" was mainly interpreted as
the diplomatic activity of a state or the art of conducting relations between states.
The goals of states' foreign policy are divided into anarchist and normative ones.
Anarchist goals consist in states' striving for freedom of action, self-regulation,
and the elimination of influence over their policy from other states and international organizations.
Normative goals consist in states' attempts to achieve a certain international order,
to regulate relations among themselves with the help of law and international organizations.
To achieve their goals, states apply disintegrative and integrative methods.
Disintegrative methods include violence, pressure, and interference in the internal affairs of other
states. Integrative methods are understood as compromise, consensus, and the renunciation of
the possibility of using force in relations with other states.
From the combination of these goals and two groups of methods, according to J. Bellers, four types of foreign
policy are formed:
1. Missionary policy is defined by normative goals and disintegrative
methods. The state seeks to impose on other states certain rules of behavior, its own
moral, ideological, or religious values, its own social order, etc., through
violence and intervention.
2. Liberal policy is formed at the intersection of anarchist goals and
integrative methods.
It allows the influence of other states while using diplomatic means.
3. Pacifist policy arises at the intersection of normative goals and integrative
methods. It is aimed at introducing an international order, but fundamentally
rejects the use of any coercive means in the interactions between states.
4. Totalitarian policy follows from anarchist goals and is linked to
the application of disintegrative methods. It is harsh and reckless, since such states
consistently reject any international order and do not stop short of
using force to achieve their goals.
Examining a state's foreign policy, J. Pietras draws an analogy to a social
system, which "is a set of integrated elements, but from the outside is viewed as a preservation,
capable of maintaining equilibrium with its environment.
Given the criterion of the system's activity level, he identifies three types of political
adaptation to the state of the international environment (i.e., of foreign policy):
1. Passive adaptation of a state consists in accepting the influence of the international
environment and subordinating its policy to external influences.
It follows from the weakness of the state or from a recognition that the interests of development take priority over identity.
2. Active adaptation consists in transforming the international environment in accordance
with the state's interests, subjecting other states to its influence, and imposing on them
its own values, interests, and goals.
Relying on significant power or recognizing the interests of identity as a priority
relative to others.
3. Creative adaptation is a certain compromise between the two preceding types.
It is based on filtering the influences of the international environment, that is, the state accepts
from it only what it considers correct and necessary.
The convergence of internal and external environments through the achievement of asymmetrically
positioned points of equilibrium between them.
(Asymmetric) power potential, whose political elites try to preserve
fundamental national values while simultaneously contributing to the development and modernization
of social structures.
Proceeding from a similar understanding of a state's foreign policy, J. Rosenau
identifies its possible types:
1. Weak foreign policy follows from the general weakness of a state and consists in
its subordination to the influence of the international environment.
Of states is carried out by coordinating their activity with external influences and
follows from the ruling political elite's dissatisfaction with the international order and the state's
status within it.
2. Active foreign policy is a consequence of a state's striving to simultaneously
change its domestic and international environments, achieving a dynamic equilibrium between
them.
3. Conservative policy, from J. Rosenau's point of view, is the optimal foreign
policy, based on an already-achieved point of equilibrium between the environments,
which states try to preserve.
To preserve the status quo, regarding any changes to it as a threat to their
interests. Evidently, such a foreign policy is pursued by states satisfied
with the international order and their place within it.
International politics arises from the totality of political interactions in the relations among
sovereign states, each of which tries to realize its own interests and goals
of activity in the international environment.
Of states pursuing differing types of foreign policy is the formation of an international
political situation, in light of which they are forced to substantially adjust the content and direction of their
actions. This is precisely the essence of what K. Waltz once revealed as the paradox of structure in
international relations, whereby the uncoordinated activity of states leads to the
emergence of a system that creates a set of structural constraints and possibilities for
their policies.
Given the qualitative changes in the most important parameters of international political
situations, three major types of foreign policy relations can be identified:
1. Partnership relations are directly connected with the fact that a certain number of states
maintain relations distinguished by mutual support for their
foreign policy actions. These may concern forming a common position on certain
issues of international life, providing assistance and support in carrying out
foreign policy actions, mutual security guarantees, the training of military specialists,
and the conducting of joint exercises by units and formations of armed forces.
2. Confrontational relations consist in political opposition between the parties
and are based on rejection of each other's policy.
A demarche, military rivalry, the threat of force or its use against one another.
Indirectly, this type of relations forms in areas of "vital interests"
or manifests itself in the common practice of maintaining "the enemy of my enemy."
3. Dominant relations arise between states when one of them controls
the other through economic dependence, oversight of its political leadership, the presence of its
troops on its territory, or even the occupation of its territory. Dominance can have
a protectionist character, when the stronger state assumes the function of defending the weaker one.
The coercive character of dominance is a form of dictate by the stronger state, forcing the weaker one
into certain actions or inaction.
Thus, in world politics the following states can be identified:
1. The state of peaceful coexistence – a situation of global partnership among
the leading states, when each of them participates in mutually beneficial cooperation
or does not oppose the other (or others).
2. The state of confrontation – a global political situation in which the world's leading states
oppose one another. Their policy, to which other states of the world
are forced to adapt, is built on mutual intimidation and expressed through a number of local conflicts
occurring on the periphery of the international system.
3. The state of conflict – a situation in which the world's leading states move from
confrontation to open (including armed) struggle. The negotiation process always
follows from the parties' recognition of a specific problem arising in relations between them, and
their desire to resolve it. W. Zartman and M. Berman identified three phases in the negotiation
process:
1. Diagnosis – the parties determine the fact that the negotiation process needs to begin
and make a decision to that effect. The likelihood of one or another
solution to the problem is assessed, arguments, precedents, and facts are gathered and systematized,
and initial positions are formulated.
2. Working out the formula for negotiations consists in the parties reaching an
understanding of the principle for the final resolution of the main problem.
3. Concrete negotiations take place on the basis of the principle agreed upon above,
according to which the final wording of the agreement is achieved and specific
arrangements are reached for resolving individual issues arising from the main problem. In the
negotiation process, the parties traditionally formulate their initial positions and try to
reach mutual understanding on the terms most favorable to them.
Game theory has worked out five different solutions reflecting the possible
options for distributing benefit:
1. The egalitarian solution is described in the works of the founders of game theory, J. von Neumann
and O. Morgenstern. They believe that in the negotiation process the parties are guided
by the principles of cooperative rationality and mutual benefit, which determine the optimal
distribution of benefit according to the 50/50 principle.
2. The utilitarian solution, proposed by J. Nash, consists in understanding
fairness in the distribution of benefit as proportional to the parties' level of power. The stronger
party should always receive more, and the weaker – less. The proportion of distribution is
"floating" and always depends on the balance of power of the parties to the negotiation
process.
3. The charitative solution is found in Western left-wing thought and consists in the idea
of a reverse distribution of benefit. The optimal solution is one in which the stronger party
receives less than the weaker one, since it needs far less.
4. The distributive solution was developed and described by H. Brock. It is a certain
compromise between the principles of "to each according to need" and "to each according to contribution." The principle
of distribution depends on the situation in which the negotiation process is conducted. If between
the parties there are no sharp disputes and both sides gain benefit from any distribution,
the charitative solution is optimal; otherwise — the utilitarian one.
5. The procedural solution was proposed by H. Peyton Young. In the
negotiation process, the parties choose a solution procedure whereby at least
one of them formulates several options (i.e., different variants of distribution based on
different principles), while the other chooses one of them. To carry out its most important functions,
namely conducting negotiations and concluding agreements, diplomacy makes use of a number of
techniques and means, which are comprehensively manifested in its forms.
Four forms of diplomatic activity are distinguished: special missions, permanent
missions, international conferences, and international organizations.
1. Special missions (ad hoc missions) — the oldest of all forms of diplomatic
activity, which for millennia was the only way of conducting diplomatic relations
between states. B. Humeniuk notes: "At the dawn of civilization, in the context of the
development of the first interstate and international relations, there existed no other forms of
diplomatic activity besides special missions." The first mentions of them go back to the 3rd millennium
BC, when they secured the conclusion of a treaty between the Mesopotamian city-states of Lagash and Umma (3100 BC).
2. Permanent missions have functioned since the 15th century, when the Duke of Milan
Sforza appointed his permanent representative at the court of the Duke of Florence,
Medici. Already in 1463 he established the first embassy at the court of the King of France. Permanent
missions are the basis of modern bilateral interstate relations, since they make it
possible to maintain regular relations and cooperate in resolving a fairly
broad range of issues.
3. International conferences as a form of diplomatic activity have been held since
the beginning of the 19th century, when the Congress of Vienna took place in 1815. Since then they have become the main
form for the implementation of multilateral interstate relations.
International conferences — are gatherings (sometimes periodic) of representatives of
interested parties, held for the purpose of resolving specific problems that constitute
a common interest of the parties represented at them, or of coordinating foreign policy actions
for their realization. The convening of an international conference begins with a proposal
from the initiating state (or group of states) regarding the need for such a conference, its venue, and the draft
list of issues for discussion.
4. International organizations play a very important role in multilateral and
collective relations between states since the beginning of the 20th century. The first of such organizations, which
performed the functions (among all the others) of multilateral representation of states' interests
and a forum for discussing problems, is classically considered to be the League of Nations.
An international organization represents a means of permanent consultation and
correlation of the positions of member states. Compared with other forms of diplomatic
activity, it is characterized by certain distinctive features, since its institutions, alongside
the governments of states, are among the initiators of foreign policy decisions. Its
institutions as a whole have an intergovernmental character and act within the competence outlined
in the charters developed specifically for them. The foundation for the system of international organizations is
the Charter of the United Nations, signed by the founding states on 26 July 1945
in San Francisco, which contains sections devoted to the goals and principles of the organization's activity,
the structure and competence of its bodies, membership, and the order of relations between states,
the organization's organs, and its institutions.
In interstate military relations, three key
types can be identified: partnership, dominant, and hostile.
1. Partnership relations are carried out between states that are roughly equal in military
terms. It is understood that each of them is capable of independently defending its own
sovereignty. They may bear an alliance character, when the parties mutually guarantee
military support in the event of aggression against one of them.
2. Dominant relations in the military sphere occur between states when
one of them is so weak that it is unable to defend its sovereignty independently.
Dominant relations may bear the character of:
a) protectionist — connected with the armed defense of a weaker partner, which
is usually carried out at its request;
b) coercive — determined by military presence in the most important regions
of a weaker state, aimed at compelling its political leadership to certain actions or
inaction;
c) occupational — consisting of the complete seizure by armed forces of the stronger
state of the territory of the weaker one, in order to establish full control over the actions of its political
leadership, depriving it of independence both in international relations and in internal
affairs.
3. Hostile relations arise between states when they attempt to
realize diametrically opposed interests and are inclined to use armed
force. If states only threaten one another but do not resort to armed
struggle, their relations bear the character of confrontation. Their marginal struggle to
improve their strategic positions and the arms race are relations that, in their content, are
rivalrous. Only when states are inclined toward uncompromising armed struggle
against one another, arising from their absolute non-acceptance of the fact of each other's existence, do such
relations acquire an antagonistic character.
Unlike political relations, international economic relations developed
much more slowly. At first they consisted of primitive barter trade between tribes,
and in Antiquity and the Middle Ages – in trade in luxury goods and spices.
The processes of the formation of the world economy, in which international economic
relations began to play a more active role, only intensified after the Industrial
Revolution at the beginning of the 19th century. Beginning from this time, a system of
international economic relations gradually took shape.
By the end of the 15th century, the economies of certain states of the world were little connected with one another and
practically did not depend on the development of international trade and monetary relations.
The formation of powerful colonial empires and the "industrial revolution" of the early 19th century in
Europe fundamentally changed the situation. Alongside the growth of international trade, already
by the late 19th – early 20th century, intensive processes of the internationalization of
production had begun.
In the 1960s–1980s of the 20th century, in parallel with the scientific-technological revolution, the rapid
development of international economic relations objectively led to the beginning of the formation of a
global economy, in which the existence of closed national economic systems
is regarded as an obstacle to its development. The defining concepts for both definitions
of international economic relations are the international division of labor and the world economy.
The international division of labor — is the highest degree of development of
the social-territorial division of labor between countries, based on economically advantageous
specialization and the exchange of goods of a certain quantity and quality. The international division
of labor arises from the undeniable fact of the differentiation of the physical-geographic
features of the world's countries, natural resources, level of technology, and the socio-political
conditions for the development of production. This differentiation leads to a shortage of certain kinds of
resources in some states and a surplus of them — in others, differences in the technological level of
production of particular goods, and differences in the socio-political conditions in different
states of the world. In light of this, systems of international exchange of goods,
information, and services arise, without which the existence and development of the economies of most states
in the contemporary world is impossible or at least significantly complicated.
The world economy — is the aggregate of national economies interconnected by
international economic relations, with a corresponding mechanism of regulation and
management. International economic relations form the world economy by uniting
the economies of countries through a system of commodity and monetary flows.
The subjects of international economic relations are, above all, producers
of goods, trading and investment companies, and banks.
State policy in the sphere of international economic relations comes down to
choosing a certain strategy of action regarding the freedom of movement of goods, money, and labor.
Liberal policy consists in minimal state interference in international
economic relations and is based on the deliberate elimination of obstacles to the movement of commodity,
monetary, and human flows. State bodies do not interfere in the relations that arise
between economic actors, but only register and monitor them. In pursuing a
liberal foreign economic policy, states demand reciprocity from their partners,
since they risk significant losses for their own economic actors.
Such a policy is pursued primarily by economically powerful states,
either directly or within the framework of international trade organizations, resulting in the formation of
a unified economic space, relatively separate from others.
Protectionist policy is aimed at protecting a domestic market from competition
and at protecting national economic actors from financial subordination to foreign ones.
Protectionist economic policy can be pursued selectively with respect to particular countries
or groups of goods, or as collective measures initiated by international organizations. A
variant of this is also possible in the form of hidden protectionism, carried out through
methods of domestic economic policy. Protectionism in foreign economic
activity is accompanied by state assistance in promoting domestic goods and capital in
foreign markets.
In the system of international economic relations, one can distinguish several variants which,
despite their close interconnection, are quite specific in character. Trade
relations between producers and consumers of different
states involve the exchange of goods, services, and information through acts of purchase and sale. Relations between states in this sphere consist in establishing framework rules of
regulation:
1. Unilateral regulation is carried out by a state without consultation or coordination with
the governments of other interested states, based on the interests of its own producers.
2. Bilateral regulation consists in coordinating the measures for regulating foreign
trade between two states interested in regulating or developing it. The resolution reached
by the parties is fixed in trade agreements that they conclude officially, which
are binding on trade between them.
3. Multilateral regulation is carried out through the coordination of measures for
regulating trade between states within international organizations, such as the European Union,
the North American Free Trade Association, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Production relations are mainly carried out within joint ventures and TNCs,
whose specific activity consists in international production cooperation, in which the stages
of producing finished goods are concentrated in different countries of the world. In this case
the TNC in effect becomes an "international enterprise," the technological stages of
whose production are located in those countries where optimal economic
conditions are created for them. Such relations lead to commodity and financial flows which, despite
their character as internal to the production structure, are mostly accounted for in the balance
of states' foreign trade. The main difference between production relations and trade relations lies
in the fact that they do not arise from an act of purchase and sale. Financial relations
are connected with the movement between states of monetary flows that ensure foreign trade
operations, international credit, and investment in the national economy. In light of this,
the financial flows that ensure the functioning of the world economy can be reduced
to payment, credit, and investment flows.
1. Payment relations are a system of mutual monetary flows (both cash and
non-cash) that ensure settlements between subjects of international economic
relations for goods, services, information, etc. consumed.
2. Credit relations are connected with the granting of loans, their use, and
their repayment. The subjects of credit relations are states, credit institutions, and legal and
natural persons.
3. Investment relations consist in relations between state and
non-state institutions, involving the placement of currency investments in the development
of the economies of other countries.
International relations in the sphere of culture
Culture and the relations associated with it — are a very complex and multifaceted
phenomenon, which is quite difficult to define precisely in contemporary scholarship. Marcus Tullius Cicero was among the
first to give this concept a spiritual dimension, linking it to the preservation of historical
heritage and spiritual values.
Article 1 of the international convention "On the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict" of 14 May 1954 states: "Cultural property means
monuments of architecture, art, or history, whether religious or secular, archaeological
sites, groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest,
works of art, manuscripts, books, and other objects of artistic, historical, or
archaeological interest, as well as scientific collections or important collections of books, archival
materials, or reproductions of the property defined above." The attitude of political elites to
the problem of the identity of the national cultural field lies at the foundation of states' policy
regarding external cultural influences.
In view of this, J. Pietras proposes distinguishing four types of national
political elites:
1. Cosmopolitan elites, who support the process of borrowing the values and
standards of foreign culture, considering it more progressive even when this
leads to the destruction of the national cultural field.
2. Nationalist elites strive to prevent foreign cultural influences and
to preserve traditional values unchanged, idealizing the past.
3. Comprador elites pursue a policy of selective borrowing of the values
of foreign culture, which leads to the emergence in the state of a situation of parallel
cultural development. Certain social groups (close to the political elite) prefer
patterns of borrowed foreign culture, while the greater part of the population remains within
the field of traditional national culture. This leads to the marginality of its development, but,
on the other hand, the borrowed cultural values have an "artificial character" and are not accepted by
the majority of the population.
4. Liberal political elites try to combine both value systems so
as to create a new culture that would foster social progress without destroying
the fundamental foundations of national tradition.
International relations in the sphere of information
Since ancient times, the transmission of messages about real events of international
life has been extremely important both in the domestic and foreign policy of states.
For millennia the main means of transmitting information were messengers, who
served, above all, the needs of political leadership and formed the basis for
their decision-making in the area of foreign policy. In the 18th century, in France, for the needs of
rapid information transmission, a courier post was established, which used
stagecoach links for this purpose. Beginning in the 19th century
the sphere of international information relations underwent revolutionary changes, consisting in
the improvement of old and the invention of new technical means of transmitting information.
The development of transport, the invention of the telegraph, the telephone, radio, and finally the introduction of
modern computer networks, not only testified to the degree of society's progress but also
led to genuine information revolutions.
Information is a means of reflecting the real environment in the form of facts and their
initial commentary and interpretation. Given the specifics of its use
by consumers, the following varieties of information are distinguished:
1. Secret information, used by political leadership in the process of making
the most important decisions, the disclosure of which could cause serious harm to the interests of the state.
2. Specialized information, having a narrow operational application, which can be used
only by specialists in the sphere of social activity to which it relates. The regime governing the use
of such information is not always open, since certain data may constitute a state,
official, or private commercial secret.
3. Mass information, general and accessible to any consumer. It
is disseminated through the press, radio, television, and global information networks.
State policy in the world information field can be characterized as follows:
1. Liberal policy is built on principles of non-interference in the information process,
recognition of citizens' right to obtain information from any source, and support for the free
circulation of information.
2. Active information policy consists in an attempt to establish control (of one degree
of severity or another) over the mass media, through
counter-propaganda and active assistance in disseminating, beyond the borders of the state, information that
reflects the views of the national ruling elite.
3. Autarkic information policy is associated with the "closing" of the national
information field, a complete ban or a certain restriction of citizens' right to
use information of foreign origin and its perception as hostile. The real
international order in the sphere of international information relations is determined by the
financial and, correspondingly, technical capabilities of the world's countries.
Forms of international relations
International relations are realized through a number of forms, each of which is
their realization, determined by the numerical composition of the participants in a given interaction.
The numerical definition of participants in the forms of international relations has a much deeper
content than it might at first appear, since the character and
features of relations change depending on this. The more participants in international relations that take part in
specific interactions, the more complex those relations become, since they require more complex mechanisms of
realization.
Three forms of international relations are distinguished: bilateral, multilateral,
and collective:
Bilateral relations are the oldest, basic form of
international relations, one that is widespread in the contemporary world as well. For relations to be perceived as such,
at least two parties are required.
The parties may realize between themselves a single type of relations or (as this
is predominantly the case) several at once. This form predominates for any type of participant
in international relations. In bilateral interactions, participants in international relations
may dominate, that is, unilaterally influence (control) one another,
maintain partnership relations with one another (interact), or come into conflict. In each
case, the parties, depending on the content of the relations between them, make use of the corresponding
diplomatic and legal instruments.
Multilateral relations are a form associated with the participation in
relations of several, sometimes many, parties, which may be connected to one another either
directly or through one of the participants whose role among them is more important than
the others. Participants in international relations enter into such relations with one another when
the resolution of a particular problem of common interest is impossible or difficult without
the participation of several parties. This form of international relations is considerably more complex compared with
the previous one, since it presupposes the use of multilateral mechanisms for coordinating
the actions of countries. Collective relations have the highest degree of integration compared with all other forms,
since their realization (which is the defining formal
feature) requires the formation of an inter-subject center that performs the functions of coordinator and
organizer of relations among the multitude of participants in international relations.
Such a form of international relations sometimes even sets very strict norms
for the participants' activity; each of them loses part of its own functions and powers
in favor of the coordinating center created. Collective relations are mostly
long-term in character and have a greater density of interconnections among their participants. Depending on
the form of international relations, the methods of legal regulation of the participants'
activity change accordingly. While bilateral relations are carried out on the basis of bilateral agreements,
treaties, or even a modus vivendi, the basis of multilateral relations is agreements,
treaties, and conventions. Collective relations, unlike the preceding ones, are regulated by
agreements, treaties, charters, and so on.
Self-study questions:
1. Analyze the typological structure of international relations.
2. Identify the most important features of international relations.
3. Describe foreign policy relations.
4. Characterize international economic affairs.
4. Characterize international relations in the field of culture.
5. Characterize international relations in the field of information.
6. Analyze the forms of international relations.
Comments