6. Main Directions in the Theory of International Relations

Lecture

Goal: To examine the explanatory theories of international relations and the principles of the classical school of the theory of international relations,
idealism, and the foundational principles of the theory of political realism, as well as neorealism and neoliberalism and their fundamental disagreements.

1. The evolution of idealist concepts of international relations.
2. The problem of classifying scientific concepts.
3. The formation of realist theories of international relations.
4. The principles of the classical school of the theory of international relations.
5. The theory of idealism.
6. Political realism.
7. Neorealism and neoliberalism.

The evolution of idealist concepts of international relations.

Ancient scholars concentrated their attention on the essence of the state and the problems of war and peace,
which, in the end, and in later times as well, were the main object of study in the theory of international
relations. Even then, statements were formulated about the abnormality of wars and their just
or unjust character, while the aggressiveness of states was explained by the features of their
internal political system.
Plato became the author of a concept of the forms of political rule of states,
their consistent degradation, and their cycle. The most important forms of the state are:
aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.
They determine not only the internal but also the foreign policy of a state, since it limits and directs the will of the people.

Inclined toward external aggression is timocracy, as a "mixed order, whose features are
partial imitation of aristocracy (timocracy is characterized by respect for authority...),
partial imitation of oligarchy (people here are greedy for money and, like savages, respect gold and silver);
under such an order there remain no straightforward and simple-hearted people; those who rule will not be wise,
but rather simpler people, born for wars, endowed with a fierce spirit, where
military tricks will be held in esteem, and such a state will forever be at war." The combination of brave and warlike
rulers with a mercantile society, in whose interests they act, is, according to Plato,
the most important cause of the aggressiveness of states and wars between them.

Aristotle is the author of one of the first works summarizing the experience of state
governance — "Politics." Aristotle set out the international context of the state's existence in
seven statements:
1. The ultimate goal of a state's policy is to achieve the happiness of its citizens, which
is determined by law, good customs, and upbringing.
He believed that an ideal state could not exist, since the fact of its proximity to other
states would force it to adapt to that (not always friendly) environment.
2. The basis of relations between states must exclude the imposition of one upon another,
since this contradicts good customs and law.
3. Wars and conquest are not the goal of a state, although it must be prepared for war
for its own defense.
4. A state's territory should be difficult for enemies to access, but should have sufficient
routes (land or sea) that can be used for military and commercial purposes.
5. People behave in accordance with the climatic conditions of where they live.
they are active and independent, while in countries with a hot climate — they are sluggish and indecisive, although
endowed with creative imagination.
6. A state needs military force only during war, and therefore its maintenance is not
the most important goal of state policy, but merely a means to be applied in critical
situations.
7. The possession of armed forces, and especially a navy, is necessary for some
states even in peacetime, because it makes it possible to inspire respect and fear in enemies, and
besides this, to assist friendly states.
The main idea of Plato and Aristotle, which later became the foundation not only
of idealism but of the entire classical school of the theory of international relations, consisted in the assertion
of the subjective character of the state and its policy.
By the criteria of wisdom and justice, they understood this as an imitation of good customs and
ideas.

Of Aquinas, who saw the cause of war in the sinfulness of people and secular
power, and considered the means of achieving and preserving peace to be the combination in politics of ordinary and canon
law, that is, human and divine order.
Subordinating secular power to spiritual power was aimed at the complete elimination from
public life of war between Christians and its regulation on the basis of lex belli (the law of war)
— wars waged in the name of self-defense, the victory of "good over evil," and the maintenance of Christianity in the struggle
against unbelievers and barbarians.
For a war to be recognized as just, three conditions are required:
– it must be officially declared by a legitimate government;
by a just cause (iusta causa);

its purpose must be defined as just;

– by right intention (recta intentio).
The concept of T. Aquinas became the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, since
it grounded and generalized its practical policy toward the European states of
that time. The idea of the complete elimination of war from international relations in the Modern era led to
attempts to theoretically justify the so-called "La Paix Perpetuelle" ("Perpetual Peace"), which
was based on the idea of creating a pan-European confederation as a way of achieving
peace and avoiding wars by overcoming the arbitrariness of feudal rulers.
A great variety of confederation projects were put forward by P. Dubois, the Duke of Sully, Erasmus
of Rotterdam, W. Penn, J.-J. Rousseau, and many other thinkers. These projects were
connected with the search for the optimal political organization of Europe.
A distinctive feature of their views was the justification of the need to create
a certain supra-state institution that could impartially resolve disputes between
European states. A council of monarchs was proposed by P. Dubois, a European parliament
– by W. Penn, and a council of confederation – by J.-J. Rousseau. In every case their competences included
not only arbitration in interstate disputes, but also the armed "punishment" of an aggressor by the community of
states, headed by supranational institutions. H. Grotius (1583-1645) formulated
the concept of harmonious and conflict-free international relations through the creation
and implementation of a system of international law. In one of his first works, "Mare
liberum" ("The Free Sea"), he attempted to examine the dilemma of war and peace through the prism
of moral principles that determine the relations between the states of the world. In
his opinion, in order to resolve armed conflicts one should apply universal
moral principles that must be observed by the governments of all countries of the world.
This concerns: the principle of self-preservation, consisting of mutual respect for the legitimate
and necessary interests of states' existence; the principle of opposition to arbitrariness and
injustice, that is, the solidarity of governments in preventing policies based on
unfounded self-preservation in their interests and goals. J. Bentham (1748-1832) put forward the idea
of "limiting force" in international relations, which, in his opinion, would make impossible armed
conflicts and wars of conquest caused by religious and priority-based disputes,
the tyranny of one nation over another, and the self-serving interests of ruling elites. Political elites
have become accustomed, under any circumstances, to using armed force, despite the fact that such
a policy contradicts the interests of peoples inclined toward peace and harmony. To limit
the use of armed force in international relations, according to J. Bentham, is possible under such
conditions:

- the introduction of the personal responsibility of members of government for involving peoples in war;
the cessation of militarization, the weakening of the army's influence on society, and universal
disarmament;

-the cessation of the practice of "secret" diplomacy;

- the creation of an international

organization composed of delegations of European states, authorized to resolve disputes
between them.
The foundations of the idealist understanding of international relations are integrally and clearly
formulated in the works of the outstanding German philosopher I. Kant, "Toward Perpetual Peace" and "Idea
for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View". Kant is considered the founder of the liberal
direction of idealism, for his idea that the goal of the development of humanity is the achievement of a "common
civic state", understood as a system of representative democracy,
which will arise owing to the fact that if the question of whether war should be or not
requires the consent of citizens, then... they will think carefully before starting so
bad a game. Because they will have to bear the whole burden of the war themselves: to fight themselves,
to pay the military expenses of their states out of their own pockets, and in the end to restore
the devastation caused by the war".

A state of perpetual peace should be supported by the development of mutually beneficial trade
relations and a system of international law. This will help smooth out contradictions and mistrust
between peoples, and create a moral and legal basis for their harmonious development.
In general, relations between states can be permanently peaceful provided that
their governments observe six most important principles:
1. An international treaty cannot have legal force when it secretly
contains a reservatio mentalis, since international treaties are designed to eliminate the causes
of wars between states, not to create grounds for their occurrence in the future.
2. No independent state can be annexed or transferred (as an inheritance, as a
result of purchase, exchange, or dynastic marriage) to another. A state and its citizens
cannot be regarded as property, since they possess national sovereignty,
the violation of which always leads to wars.
3. Standing armies must eventually be abolished, since being constantly ready to wage
war, they represent a serious threat to the existence of other, above all neighboring, states. Their
existence entails attempts by governments to arm themselves and increase their armed forces to the limit,
at which "the military expenditures involved in maintaining peace become so burdensome
compared to a short war that the very standing armies become the cause of a military attack aimed at ridding oneself of this burden".
4. State debts must not be used for purposes of foreign policy.
This concerns the accumulation by governments of external debts, which can give them the necessary means
for waging war even against creditor states.
5. No state in the world can interfere by force in the internal affairs of another
state. Such interference is a violation of the sovereign rights of the people and cannot provoke
any other reaction but armed resistance to the interveners.
6. No state may use dishonorable methods in political struggle (even in times
of war): assassination, violation of the terms of treaties or of an act of capitulation,
incitement of foreign citizens to treason or rebellion against their own legitimate authority. Such actions
undermine trust in relations between the governments of states and the authority of the power that resorts to them
in the eyes of its own citizens. Idealism finally took shape in the 1920s-1930s as
a systematized body of views of intellectuals — idealists who shared the position
of US President W. Wilson toward the League of Nations and contemporary international relations.
His views are expressed in the programmatic slogans of a cardinal transformation of international
relations: "peace through law", "harmony of interests", "world harmony", "international law
as the world's treasury of moral values".

The famous 14 points, proposed by the US President at the Versailles peace
conference, became the actual embodiment of the theoretical principles of idealism in real
international relations.

The theoretical views of the idealists on international relations come down to the following
statements:
1. International relations, like any social relations, arise from the character
and aspirations of man, and therefore it is appropriate to examine and explain them through the prism of his behavior.
A human being, like any collective he creates, is interested in harmonious and
conflict-free relations, since they guarantee development and prosperity.
2. States are a macro-phenomenon of any human community, and their foreign policy
can be compared to human behavior, that is, it can be moral or
immoral, good or evil. The criterion of morality is universal human norms of
behavior, materialized in the sphere of international relations as harmony and
freedom from conflict. The instruments for maintaining stability are international organizations,
international law, and world public opinion. International organizations are meant to serve as
regulators of relations between states, playing the role of arbiters and directing them along the
path of harmony.
3. National interest is psychologically an expression of a subjective understanding of the needs
of society, which always differs from reality.
4. Conflicts cannot arise on an objective basis, because any
contradictions without an objective basis can be settled through negotiations.
The problem of classifying scientific concepts
The goal of the theory of international relations is always the scientific interpretation (explanation)
of the most essential phenomena, processes, and interconnections of the object of study. As T.G.
Knutsen states, "theory is an abstracted, hypothetical, or speculative reflection of
reality.

To theorize – means to think with the aim of understanding and explaining." Any
explanatory concepts in the theory of international relations are strictly determined by initial
assertions, having the character of assumptions, by means of which the researcher attempts to interpret their
underlying basis. The a priori assertion, adopted by the author of a concept on the basis of empirical
experience and their own scientific worldview, consists in their selecting phenomena or processes that, in their
opinion, are decisive in international relations, through which one can understand and explain
them as a whole. It is ultimately and precisely formulated as a principle for understanding the essence
of the phenomenon being studied, being a formalized a priori assertion about the content and
decisive factors of international relations.

Thus, each scientific school in the theory of international relations is a set of
theoretical concepts that logically follow from the principles underlying them.
The opposition of individual theories, the confrontation of scientific ideas and concepts, has always been
the driving force behind the development of the theory of international relations. Within its research, significant
debates have periodically arisen between representatives of different
scientific schools and individual theories — debates important for the development of scientific knowledge.

One can note the particular explanatory significance of four major
debates:

The first of them broke out back in the 1940s between representatives of the classical
theories of idealism and political realism. It concerned a dispute over a wide range of
issues related to international relations. The discussions revolved around assertions
about the content of the basic concepts and categories of the science, and the root causes and driving forces of international
relations. Echoes of this debate are felt in the theory of international relations even now, as it
continues to be carried on by the followers of the ideas of the classical school — the neorealists and the
neoliberalists. Despite considerable modification of the basic tenets of the newest
theories of the classical school, the subject matter of the debate between them remains close to that
over which their predecessors argued at the beginning of the 20th century.

The second debate, also commonly called the "Great Debate," began in the 1960s–1970s and led to a split among scholars into opposing camps of
traditionalists and behavioralists. The most important issue in the polemic between them can
be considered the problem of the methodology for studying international relations, although the content of the discussion had a
much deeper character. The traditionalists considered it necessary to study international
relations by understanding the specific nature of the human being, the interests and values
inherent in human communities. In contrast, the behavioralists, rejecting subjectivism,
attempted to formulate the laws and regularities of international relations and to rely on
precise (including mathematical) methods of research. That is, the polemic around method and
methodology was merely a manifestation of a much deeper discussion about the subjective or objective
character of international phenomena and processes, and, more narrowly still, about the role and significance of the human being in
social processes.

The third debate is connected with sharp criticism of the theories of the classical school by
neo-Marxists. The main subject of dispute between the proponents of neo-Marxism and the
classical theories are the problems of the subjectivity and content of international relations.
The fourth debate began in the 1980s–1990s, when "alternative" schools of thought — postmodernism, feminism, and
criticism — came out fairly actively against classical theory. It touches on both
individual methodological questions and problems related
to the understanding and scientific interpretation of the most important phenomena and processes of international
relations in the 20th century.

In particular, representatives of the above-mentioned scientific schools reproach classical
theory for being able to logically explain only the confrontational periods of human history, while
their theoretical concepts advance a series of arguments, for example, concerning the considerable strength
of initiatives originating within the components of the system (this refers to the activity of sub-national participants
in international relations — author's note), concerning the significance of the cultural dimension in world politics,
and concerning the need for a thorough analysis of the normative commitments that could offer
an idealistic projection of international relations.
The fourth debate in the theory of international relations came to be known as
the inter-paradigmatic debate, which reflected, on the one hand, scholars' attempts to put forward
certain explanatory concepts for the new realities that have taken shape in the contemporary world, and, on the other —
the claim of a younger generation of theorists to advance new and non-traditional paradigms
in the theory of international relations.

The problem of grouping explanatory concepts is examined in a number of
fundamental works, in which attempts have also been made to systematize the theoretical foundations of
the science of international relations.

In particular, J. Dougherty and R. Pfaltzgraff divided theoretical concepts into two groups
— grand theories and middle-range theories. Among the grand theories, which aim to explain a wide
range of questions related to international relations, they distinguish: "field" theories (Q.
Wright and R. Rummel), realism (H. Morgenthau, R. Aron, and H. Kissinger), neorealism (K.
Waltz, K. Kindermann), and systems theories (M. Kaplan, R. Rosecrance). (The theories of the classical school
are also called traditionalism, although in some scholarly works this name applies only to
political realism, the chroniclers and jurists who observed and studied manifestations of hostility
and rivalry among the subjects of international life... These thinkers gradually became
the founders of the scientific study of international relations, at a time when social relations on an
international scale were acquiring ever greater influence on the life of organized
social groups.")
Middle-range explanatory theories include the concepts of: the geographic influence
of the environment, communication and information systems, functionalism and sectoral integration,
strategic deterrence, development and conflicts, armed conflicts, cooperation
within alliances, "bargaining" (negotiation theory), and decision-making theory.
F. Braillard distinguishes general and specific theories.
To the first group, in his view, belong political realism, historical sociology, and
Marxism, while to the second belong the theory of international actors, the theory of interactions within
international systems, theories of strategy, conflict, and "peace research," and theories of integration and
international organizations.

B. Korany, in the theory of international relations, identifies the following scientific schools:
political realism, behavioralism, classical Marxism, and neo-Marxism.
P. Tsygankov proposes a fairly broad spectrum of theoretical schools: political idealism,
political realism, modernism, transnationalism, and neo-Marxism. These last two classifications
deserve special attention, since their authors reject the two-level
classification, considering that broad or general theories contain statements about all, even
marginal, aspects of international relations in concentrated form and provide a key to
understanding them. Thus, our examination of the explanatory theories of international relations will be built on a
sequential analysis of three schools: the classical school (theories of idealism and neoliberalism,
political realism, and neorealism), behavioralism, or modernism (systems theory, linkage
theory, "field" theory, post-behavioralism (postmodernism)), and determinism (theories of:
geographic determinism and geopolitics, racism, Marxism and neo-Marxism, and
civilizations). This classification of schools within the theory of international relations, apart from the advantages listed
above, is also characterized by considerably greater didactic usefulness, since it
makes it possible to better perceive what is common and what is distinct among individual theoretical concepts and
allows a broader range of scientific thought to be generalized. The principles of the classical school
of the theory of international relations. Since the most ancient times, when the first
civilizations of the Ancient East began to arise, humanity has tried to comprehend the most important
regularities of its own existence. The creation of states and the development of political and trade
relations between them placed on the agenda, with full urgency, the problem of their
mutual relations. Even then, as ultimately throughout the whole existence of humanity, relations between
states were determined by numerous contradictions, which repeatedly led to
the outbreak of bloody armed conflicts. Scientific interest in the study of international
relations, beginning from Antiquity, focused on resolving the dilemma of "war and
peace," whose relationship scholars have tried, in one way or another, to interpret.

Explaining the nature of the original interest in international relations, Yu.N. Kukulka writes:
"Wars attracted the attention of philosophers.
The problems of the theory of international relations, up until the beginning of the 20th century, were examined by historians,
philosophers, jurists, geographers, sociologists, and representatives of other social sciences.
The formation of the classical school of the theory of international relations in the period of the 1920s–60s
of the 20th century was based on interconnected principles: subjectivism, anthropomorphism, and
normativism.
Subjectivism is the perception of international relations as a process and result of
human activity in the international environment, orienting research toward the
features and regularities of human nature, which is decisive in them.
Anthropomorphism logically follows from subjectivism, since it consists in
transferring onto international relations the features of human character and studying them as a
macro-phenomenon of human relations in general.
Normativism consists in the assertion of a certain regular, standard behavior of
subjects (in particular, this concerns motives, goals, and interests), which makes it possible to view their
actions through this lens and to explain phenomena and processes in international relations.
Both the representatives of the theory of idealism and the proponents of political realism, despite
their diametrically opposed assessments of reality, consistently adhered to the principles of
subjectivism, anthropomorphism, and normativism, which form the foundation of their scientific
concepts. The classical school of theory took shape within the political sciences, since it was precisely
the representatives of these sciences who were the first to study international relations systematically.

The theory of idealism.

The theory of idealism, which was also sometimes called utopianism, and in the broader context
of general social theory — liberalism, began to take shape as a school of scientific thought
in Antiquity. Reflections on this subject can be found in the works of Plato and
Aristotle, Confucius, Cicero, Ulpian, and others.
Of particular importance for the development of the foundations of idealism were the views of two great
ancient Greek philosophers – Plato and his pupil Aristotle.
Plato (429–347 BC) became the author of an interesting concept of forms of
political rule of states, and of the theory of their consistent degradation and cyclical succession. According to
Plato, the state arises from a person's natural need to organize interactions among
those similar to themselves. Organizing these interactions pursues the goal of introducing a certain
just order to human relations. Justice in relations between people
is possible only under the condition of the state's existence, since "...those who adhere to
justice adhere to it because of an inability to commit injustice, and not
by their own choice." The most important forms of the state are: aristocracy, timocracy,
oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. Forms of political rule determine not only
the internal but also the foreign policy of a state, since it limits and directs the freedom of
people.

Among all forms of political rule, timocracy is the most prone to external aggression,
as a "mixed order, whose features are partial imitation of aristocracy (for
timocracy is characterized by respect for authority...), partial imitation of oligarchy (people here are greedy for
money and, like savages, respect gold and silver); under such an order there remain no straightforward and
simple-hearted people; those who rule will not be wise, but rather simpler people, born for war,
endowed with a fierce spirit, where military tricks will be held in esteem, and such a state will forever
be at war."

Aristotle (384–322 BC) — the author of one of the first works summarizing
the experience of state governance — "Politics." He bases his understanding of the state on the
assertion that "the state belongs to what exists by nature, and man (by
his nature) is a political being." The existence of a human being outside the community that the
state represents — is unthinkable, since a unit cannot exist without the whole. The international
context of the state's existence Aristotle set out in seven statements:
1. The ultimate goal of a state's policy is to achieve the happiness of its citizens, which
is determined by law, good customs, and upbringing. However, unlike Plato, he
believed that an ideal state could not exist, since the fact of its proximity to other
states would force it to adapt to that (not always friendly) environment.
2. The basis of relations between states must exclude the imposition of one upon another,
since this contradicts good customs and law.
3. Wars and conquest are not the goal of a state, although it must be prepared for war
for its own defense.
4. A state's territory should be difficult for enemies to access, but should have sufficient
routes (land or sea) that can be used for military and commercial purposes.
5. People behave in accordance with the climatic conditions of where they live. In Europe
they are active and independent, while in countries with a hot climate — they are sluggish and indecisive, although
endowed with creative imagination.
6. A state needs military force only during war, and therefore its maintenance is not
the most important goal of state policy, but merely a means to be applied in critical
situations.
7. The possession of armed forces, and especially a navy, is necessary for some
states even in peacetime, because it makes it possible to inspire respect and fear in enemies, and
besides this, to assist friendly states.

The main idea of Plato and Aristotle, which later became the foundation not only
of idealism but of the entire classical school of the theory of international relations, consisted in the assertion
of the subjective character of the state and its policy. This policy, which had to satisfy
the criteria of wisdom and justice, they understood as an imitation of good customs and
ideas. A revival of idealism in the Middle Ages can be seen in the theological concept of Thomas
Aquinas (1225–1274), who saw the cause of war in the sinfulness of people and secular
power, and considered the means of achieving and preserving peace to be the combination in politics of ordinary
and canon law, that is, human and divine order.
For a war to be recognized as just, three conditions are required:
1) it must be officially declared by a legitimate government;
2) it must be grounded in a just cause (iusta causa);
3) its purpose must be defined by a just intention (recta intentio). The concept of T.
Aquinas became the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, since it grounded
and generalized its practical policy toward the European states of that time.
As for wars between Christians, the situation looked somewhat different. It was considered shameful
for a Christian to fight a Christian, and the Church constantly condemned this, but in vain, as is
still the case today. But Christian theologians agreed that some wars were
"just." This category included those waged on the basis of 'legitimate
authority and for just causes."

The idea of the complete elimination of war from international relations in the Modern era led to
attempts to theoretically justify the so-called "La Paix Perpetuelle" ("Perpetual Peace"), which
was based on the idea of creating a pan-European confederation as a way of achieving
peace and avoiding wars by overcoming the arbitrariness of feudal rulers.
A great variety of confederation projects were put forward by P. Dubois, the Duke of Sully, Erasmus
of Rotterdam, W. Penn, J.-J. Rousseau, and many other thinkers. These projects were
connected with the search for the optimal political organization of Europe. A distinctive feature
of their views was the justification of the need to create a certain supra-state institution that
could impartially resolve disputes between European states. A council of monarchs
was proposed by P. Dubois, a European parliament – by W. Penn, a council of confederation – by J.-J.
Rousseau. In every case their competences included not only arbitration in interstate
disputes but also the armed "punishment" of an aggressor by the community of states, led by supra-state
institutions.

H. Grotius (1583–1645) formulated a concept of harmonious and conflict-free
international relations through the creation and implementation of a system of international
law. In his view, to resolve armed conflicts one should apply
universal moral principles that must be observed by the governments of all countries of the world.
This refers to: the principle of self-preservation, consisting in mutual respect for the legitimate and
necessary interests for the existence of states; — the principle of opposing arbitrariness and
injustice, that is, solidarity among governments in preventing policy based
on unjustified self-preservation interests and goals.

These ideas of H. Grotius are philosophically substantiated and developed in his later works. H.
Hoffman-Lortzer reduces his reasoning to five basic propositions:
1. Humanity can achieve a just and happy life only under the guidance of
the "true God," whose intentions are always just.
2. Humanity is subject to two principles: a) international law (jus gentium); b)
natural law (Jus naturae).
3. God gave Christians a special right (jus voluntarium divinum).
4. Jus naturae and jus gentium, under certain circumstances, contradict the law created
by man (jus voluntarium humanum).
5. The divine image, being perfect, corresponds to the human image,
determined not only by just intentions but also by social interests.

In his principal work "De jure Belli ac Pacis" ("On the Law of War and Peace") he understands
the system of international law as a set of customary (natural) and positive2 norms
governing relations between states, whose codification and observance by states in their policy,
in his opinion, is an effective instrument for harmonizing international relations. At the same time,
states must refrain from armed violence, and conflicts arising between
them should be resolved through negotiations, good-faith mediation, and judicial
proceedings.

J. Bentham (1748—1832) put forward the idea of "limiting force" in international
relations, which, in his opinion, would make armed conflicts and wars of conquest impossible,
caused by religious and precedence disputes, the tyranny of one nation over another,
and the self-serving interests of ruling elites. According to J. Bentham, limiting the use of armed force in
international relations is possible under the following conditions:
—introducing personal responsibility of government members for involving peoples in war;
—ending militarization, weakening the army's influence on society, and general
disarmament;
—ending the practice of "secret" diplomacy;
— creating an international organization composed of delegations of European states,
authorized to resolve disputes between them.
The foundations of the idealist understanding of international relations are set out holistically and clearly
in the works of the outstanding German philosopher I. Kant (1724—1804)
"peace" and "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View." I. Kant is considered
the founder of the liberal strand of idealism, for his idea that the goal of humanity's development is
the achievement of a "universal civil condition," understood as a system of
representative democracy. The striving to achieve such a condition follows from the need to limit
the subjective freedom of individuals endowed with power. their lack of accountability contributes to the manifestation of
cruelty, greed, and megalomania, pushing peoples toward wars that none of them
actually want. This can only be achieved under conditions of building civil society,
establishing public oversight of the actions and decisions of those in power, and engaging citizens in
the active governance of the state, the consequence of which will be lasting peace.

In general, relations between states can be permanently peaceful provided that
their governments observe six essential principles:
1. An international treaty cannot have legal force if it secretly
retains a reservatio mentalis2, since international treaties are meant to eliminate the causes of
wars between states, not to create grounds for their emergence in the future.
2. No independent state can be annexed or transferred (as inheritance, through
purchase, exchange, or dynastic marriage) to another. A state and its citizens cannot
be regarded as property, since they possess national sovereignty,
the violation of which always leads to wars.
3. Standing armies must eventually be abolished, since being constantly ready to wage
war, they pose a serious threat to the existence of other states, primarily neighboring ones. their
existence entails attempts by governments to arm themselves and increase their armed forces to the point
at which "the military expenditures required to maintain peace become so burdensome
compared with a short war that the very standing armies become the cause of a military attack aimed at
ridding themselves of this burden."
4. State debts must not be used for foreign policy purposes.
This refers to governments accumulating external debts, which could give them the means
to wage war even against creditor states.
5. No state in the world may forcibly interfere in the internal affairs of another
state. Such interference is a violation of the sovereign rights of a people and cannot provoke
any reaction other than armed resistance against the intervenors.
6. No state may use dishonorable means in political struggle (even in times
of war): assassination, breach of treaty terms or the act of capitulation,
or incitement of foreign citizens to treason or rebellion against their own lawful authority. Such actions
undermine trust in relations between the governments of states and the authority of the power that resorts to them
in the eyes of its own citizens.

Idealists, in essence of their views on international relations, also included:
Erasmus of Rotterdam, E. de Vattel, J. Locke, C. de Saint-Pierre, T. Paine, J. Mill, who,
despite some disagreements, "were united by a way of seeing the world, an expressive belief in
conscience and rationality as prerequisites for peace and harmony.
By the beginning of the 20th century, individual idealist concepts regarding the nature and content
of international relations were expressed either in the reflections of politicians or in peripheral
works of philosophers, which gives no grounds for considering idealism a coherent scientific school,
based on a well-structured system of views.

Idealism finally took shape in the 1920s-1930s as a systematized
set of views held by idealist intellectuals who shared the position of US President W.
Wilson with respect to the League of Nations and contemporary international relations. His views
were formed under the significant influence of the ideas of J. Bentham and were expressed in programmatic
slogans calling for a fundamental transformation of international relations: "peace through law," "harmony
of interests," "world harmony," "international law as the world's treasury of moral values."
The famous 14 points proposed by the US president at the Versailles peace
conference became the actual embodiment of the theoretical principles of idealism in real
international relations.

Idealists believed that war is the result of policy pursued by selfish,
cruel, and incompetent political leaders and the authority subordinate to them.
Secret diplomacy and militarism, widely practiced by states, substantially contribute
to the resulting universal suspicion and aggressiveness.
Another principle of idealism is the principle of national self-determination, which
developed out of I. Kant's idea of the "common civil condition."
would lead to the establishment of their own legitimate representative government, which would eliminate the causes of internal
conflicts and their escalation into international ones.
The theory of idealism is based on the assumptions "that human behavior shapes
the environment, but it can be changed... that humanity is capable of self-improvement...
the political environment can be transformed through the development of new institutions, such as the League
of Nations. Harmony of interest in peace at the level of a community or nation-state is grounded in the individual's interest in a peaceful world.

The theoretical views of idealists on international relations can be reduced to the following
statements:

1. International relations, like any social relations, stem from the nature
and aspirations of man, and it is therefore appropriate to examine and explain them through the prism of his behavior.
Man, like any collective he creates, is interested in harmonious and
conflict-free relations, since they guarantee development and prosperity.
2. States are a macro-phenomenon of any human community, and their foreign policy
can be compared to human behavior, that is, it can be moral or
immoral, good or evil. The criterion of morality is universal human norms
of behavior, materialized in the sphere of international relations as harmony and
freedom from conflict. A state that initiates a conflict acts immorally and deserves
the application of adequate measures against it by the international community.
the initiator of confrontation is "a natural aggressor, a rebel against peace."
3. National interest psychologically expresses a society's subjective understanding of its
needs, which is always different from reality.
4. Conflicts cannot arise on an objective basis, because any
contradictions without an objective basis can be settled through negotiations.
International relations, and especially foreign policy, must be conducted in accordance with
universal moral norms and international law, as a guarantee of stability, while their
violation leads to contradictions and conflicts, which are an abnormal phenomenon.
Idealism as a system of scientific views on international relations took shape
at the initial stage of the theory's development, primarily in the USA and Great Britain.
The crisis of the League of Nations and the Second World War put an end to many of the scholars' illusions and clearly
demonstrated the inadequacy of the reality of international relations to their conceptions of
it. The theory of idealism experienced a severe crisis, which resulted in skepticism toward it and
a transformation of analysts' positions to diametrically opposed assessments of international
relations.
The classical theory of idealism remains the theoretical foundation of many contemporary
scholarly ideas and concepts, and the scientific basis for the foreign policy of a number of states
in the world.

Political Realism

The sources of political realism, like those of its scholarly opponent — idealism, go back to
ancient times. Its founder is considered to be the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (around
460-400 BC), known as the author of "The History of the Peloponnesian War" — the first substantial
work devoted to international relations.
the realm of reason and ideas (in their idealist sense), and instead links it to: "features of human
nature, with ...the striving to fulfill one's hopes and interests, to attain power, attempts
to escape poverty or increase one's wealth." Thucydides proposes to distinguish between the causes and
the pretexts of the war that occurred in ancient Greece between the Peloponnesian and
Athenian alliances (431-404 BC) and attempts to determine their real basis,
avoiding subjective judgments and relying on facts.
Among all his conclusions, two are the most important: 1. Since ancient times
clashes between tribes and peoples have occurred over possession of the lands most valuable for
their economy. 2. The stability of relations between states depends on the balance of power
between them, and wars arise from its disruption.
Thucydides explains it through the fear of many city-states before the growing power and
attempts to prevent Athens' hegemony in Greece.
The formation of the theory of realism owes much to the Italian thinker
of the Renaissance N. Machiavelli (1469—1527).
became the foundation of later theories of political realism.
based on the study of history and the generalization of personal experience gained while serving as chancellor

of the Florentine Republic.

Characterizing the natural essence of man, he argued that man is invariably
selfish, and that any social processes are conditioned by human passions, self-interest, and
material interests. The activity of people is determined by the fact that they "strive
to achieve the same goal — glory and wealth».

A state's successful foreign policy must be based on observing seven
essential rules:

1. Any actions toward other states must be based on a sufficient level of strength and
capability, since making certain plans and trying to carry them out without having
sufficient corresponding means — is foolish and dangerous.
2. A state's actions should aim to maintain an imbalance of power favorable to itself
in its immediate surroundings, as the wise Romans traditionally did. They "supported
weaker neighbors, preventing them from growing stronger, and hindered the establishment of
powerful foreigners' influence in their countries."
3. A state must act preventively, not allowing its enemies to grow stronger or unite,
even if such actions risk drawing it into war.
4. No state can consider any alliance of which it is a member
an absolutely reliable guarantee of its security, since each of them is a union of the strong and
the weak, with the stronger states, on whose help the weaker ones count,
subjugating them.
5. No state should help another if doing so would significantly
increase the latter's power, since it only complicates its own position.
6. No triumph over another state is ever so absolute as to give
the victor grounds to humiliate the losers and "violate any terms, and especially
just ones."
7. The fulfillment of any agreements concluded by a state should be considered through
the prism of their fit with the circumstances. (N. Machiavelli, Machiavelli N. The Prince: Collection. –
Minsk, 1998. – P. 73).

The famous English thinker T. Hobbes (1588-1679) set out his vision of
society in the work "Leviathan, or The Matter, Form, and Power of an Ecclesiastical and Civil Commonwealth"
(1651). In his opinion, people are by nature selfish and greedy, endowed with the same
needs and passions, which leads to contradictions between them and to their perceiving one another
as enemies and competitors in the pursuit of their own interests."
In human nature, as T. Hobbes believed, three fundamental causes of war are embedded:
first, rivalry; second, distrust and fear; third, the desire for glory and
prestige. As a result, people in society live in a state which he called "bellum
omnium contra omnes," that is, the war of all against all. States, which he compared to
the biblical sea monster Leviathan, are by their inner essence a system
of institutions and sanctions that prevent open violence and guarantee their citizens
their fundamental rights. The German philosopher G. Hegel (1770-1831) identified among
the state's core duties the self-preservation of the society it represents.
He regarded self-preservation as an objective reality, functioning within the field of its own
interests, independent of the will and aspirations of individual citizens and of any philanthropic
ideas. In his opinion, wars are generated by the "nature of things," namely by the impossibility
of reconciling the interests of peoples and countries.

A significant contribution to the development of the scientific foundations of realism was made by the outstanding German
sociologist M. Weber (1864—1920), who addressed the question of foreign policy (as well as
politics in general) in the works "Politics as a Vocation" and "Political Communities and
the Economy." His views on their essence follow from the assertion that
"the chief means of politics is violence." The content of politics is the struggle for power, that is,
the right to dispose of other people, groups of people, or political communities (i.e.
states).

Another extremely important view of Weber's for the development of realist theory was
his assertion of the dependence of economic processes on power-political interests.
Economic interests act on foreign policy indirectly, although they do stimulate
the expansionism of the great powers.

Another source and historical predecessor of political realism was
"the balance-of-power theory, which diplomats have always preferred to practice more than academics... It was
a collection of what seemed more like general axioms than a scientific theory." Its foundations
were observed as far back as ancient Greece and India, and individual elements are set out in the views
of Thucydides, N. Machiavelli, and M. Weber. D. Hume noted that the theory of the "balance of power"
rests on elementary common sense and evident prudence. This theory
has never been formally formulated by anyone, and it is rather intuitive in nature, shaped
by the empirical experience of diplomatic practice; nonetheless it is a universal principle
of international relations, applicable in all historical eras and in all cultural
spaces.

The content of the balance-of-power theory comes down to three propositions:
1) the basis of normal international relations is stability, resting on the
equilibrium of power among states that could go to war with one another;
2) the cause of war is the disruption of the balance of power between hostile states, giving
grounds for the stronger side to expect victory and making its position uncompromising
and its behavior aggressive;
3) stability can be maintained by forming coalitions directed against
the strongest of the states (the one disturbing the equilibrium), while the combined strength of the coalition's members must
be no less than the strength of the opposing side.
The theory of the "balance of power" achieved scientific maturity with the formation of the scientific foundations of
the theory of political realism, of which it became a part.
One of the best-known realists, H. Kissinger, observed: "Theorists of the balance-
of-power system often present the matter as though it were precisely the natural form of
international relations. In fact, a balance-of-power system has been observed in human history
very rarely."

Among the realist scholars of that time, a significant contribution to realist theory was made by E.
Carr, whose book "The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919—1939" is considered one of the first
fundamental attempts to fully rethink international relations in the tradition of
political realism. E. Carr sharply criticized the theory of idealism that dominated at the time,
arguing that the difference between its adherents and the realists lies in the fact that
"the tendency to ignore what was and to consider what should be, and the tendency to derive what
should be from what was and is, define two diametrically opposed approaches to
solving any political problem.

The foundations of H. Morgenthau's theory of political realism come down to six principles
(fundamental assertions), from which all the others follow.
1. The principle of the dependence of real phenomena and processes in the sphere of politics, as of society
in general, on objective laws deeply rooted in human nature, which has not
changed since ancient times. It is worthwhile to improve society and act in the international
sphere only by understanding its laws, which cannot be interpreted at one's own
discretion, since their operation does not depend on human will.
2. The principle of equating interest with power, and in international politics – the power-based
reconciliation of interests among states, which H. Morgenthau calls the key principle of the theory of
realism. Understanding interest as power makes it possible to identify the main goal of politics:
the attainment of power. In fact, this concept "determines the specificity of the political sphere, its
distinction from other spheres of life: economics (understood in terms of interest,
defined as wealth), ethics, aesthetics, or religion." A state needs power for
self-preservation (i.e., maintaining authority within its own territory), but its accumulation
leads to the establishment of dominance over other states and peoples.
3. The principle of the instability of interest and its variability depending on circumstances and
the specific situation. It is implied that "the type of interest that determines political actions in
a particular historical period depends on the political and cultural context within
which foreign policy is formed." Power, like interest, depends on the
environment and can include both physical violence and cultural influence, enabling
control over the behavior of other countries.
4. The principle of the inapplicability of morality in its abstract sense to the actions of states
in international relations.
actions, but "universal moral principles are not applicable to state conduct in
their abstract formulation; they must be viewed through the prism of specific circumstances
of place and time. An individual can say: "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus" (Let the world perish, but
let justice be done), but a state does not have that right."
5. The principle of the non-identity of the morality of an individual nation with universal moral
laws. H. Morgenthau asserts: "All nations are tempted — and only a few of them
can resist that temptation for long — to present their goals and actions as manifestations of universal
moral principles... This identification is dangerous from a political point of view as well, since it
can create a distorted view of international politics and lead to
states trying to destroy one another allegedly in the name of moral ideals and even of
God himself."
6. The principle of the autonomy of foreign policy, as of politics in general, from all other
spheres of international relations.
power, specific relations are formed that do not always correspond to economic
interests, law, or the norms of morality and religion.
in the process of its implementation. Policy may be aimed at preserving the status quo or at
achieving world domination; it may be shaped by the goals of freedom, security, and
prosperity, or by ideals of an economic, social, or philosophical character, but in any case, achieving them requires possessing strength and exercising power.
H. Morgenthau's strongest and most weighty idea was the assertion of the power-based
character of a state's political interest in international relations, which