Lecture
Objective: To reveal the essence, model and structure of the international system, the subsystems of the internal structure of the system of international relations, the hierarchy of international systems and its most important regularities,
international systems and the features and regularities of the evolution of international systems.
1. The concept and structure of international systems.
2. The hierarchy of international systems and its most important regularities.
3. Types of international systems.
4. Features and regularities of the evolution of international systems.
5. Modeling the system of international relations.
The Westphalian system (1648):
Essence: Arose after the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years' War. Based on the principle of state sovereignty, whereby each state holds supreme power on its own territory.
The Versailles system (1919):
Essence: Created after the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles. Based on the principles of international cooperation and collective security, primarily through the League of Nations.
The bipolar system (1945–1991):
Essence: The period of the Cold War, characterized by confrontation between two superpowers – the USA and the USSR. The world was divided into two blocs: the Western (capitalist) and the Eastern (socialist), which led to numerous political and military confrontations.
The multipolar system (from 1991 to the present):
Essence: After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War, the world became more multipolar. Several influential powers emerged in international relations, such as the USA, the European Union, China and Russia, leading to more complex dynamics and interstate interactions.
These systems played a key role in shaping the world order and international relations at various stages of history.
The Potsdam-Yalta system of international relations, also known as the Bretton Woods system, was created after the Second World War. It was named after the conferences held in Potsdam (Germany) and Yalta (Crimea, USSR) in 1945, as well as the conference in Bretton Woods (USA) in 1944.
Years: 1944–1945.
Name: Potsdam-Yalta system
Essence: Created to restore international order after the Second World War. It included the establishment of new borders, the creation of the United Nations (UN) to maintain international peace and security, as well as the creation of a new international economic system (the Bretton Woods system), including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
This system laid the foundation for the postwar international order, including its political and economic aspects.
The Vienna system of international relations, also known as the Congress of Vienna, was created in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars. The main goal of this system was to establish a balance of power in Europe and prevent further major wars. It included a series of diplomatic agreements and conferences aimed at maintaining peace and stability in the region.
The concept of the «international system» is interpreted, in an ontological sense, as
a set of integrated elements (unions, blocs, coalitions, states and international
organizations) that are connected to each other by cause-and-effect relationships.
The system is an object characterized by integrity and unity, and the goal of its functioning
is to maintain a stable internal state,
the self-organization of the system, which is at the same time sufficiently adapted to changes in the external
environment.
The systemic approach to the analysis of international relations was established by M. Kaplan in the book
«System and Process in International Politics,» although the first attempts to view international
relations as a system consisting of interconnected parts, whose structure to a significant
degree determines the behavior of the states united within this system, were made by C.
McClelland in 1955.
He regards the international system as the most general system, within which
national and supranational international actors operate as its elements, while the parameters of the international
system are the internal systems of these actors.
the balance of power based on a certain set of organizations, states or their groups, participating in
it. M. Kaplan identifies five variables characteristic of every system: the basic
rules of the system, the rules for transforming the system, the rules for classifying actors, their
capabilities and information. He considers the first three to be the main ones.
For R. Aron, the international system is a totality legitimized by political
units that maintain relations with one another.
K. Waltz defines the international system through the structure that forms the political
relationships among its participants.
Scholars note that the first international system, based on
sovereignty and collective security, began in 1648 with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia,
which marked the end of the Thirty Years' War.
117
Analyzing the specifics of international relations, various researchers within the main
conceptual paradigms of the theory of international relations identify characteristic features
of international systems
For example, R. Aron believes that a state of constant struggle among states is a
universal characteristic of the system of international relations, and that power and the distribution of power
determine the basis of its functioning.
a totality of political units maintaining regular relations with one another and capable of
being drawn into a general war.
the main dimensions: the configuration of the balance of power;
the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the system.
R. Aron considers the main one of these dimensions of the international system to be the configuration of the
balance of power, which determines the existence of centers of power (poles), which in turn determine
the relations among its elements, that is, the structure of the system
The structure of the system of international relations is defined as a particular mode of
connection among states and other actors, which regularly arises in the process of their
functioning and development. The structure of the system cannot precede its elements;
the structure of the system is determined as a result of activity, and they mutually shape one another—
the interactions of international actors, guided by their own interests in their activity.
At the same time, the structure of the international system has the ability to influence the behavior of the elements
of the system, it may impose on them one or another logic of foreign policy, which may sometimes
contradict their interests.
An interesting definition is given by Y. Baturin, who considers the international system
to be a hypostatic complex (a co-system), consisting of a system of subjects of international
relations, a system of international relations, regulators of the international system (i.e.
the international legal system), and a communicative system uniting them all.
J.-P. Derriennic, analyzing the international system, names 6 of its structural
characteristics: the number of actors;
cooperation; the possibility of using certain means (force, exchange or persuasion);
those permitted by the given system;
the character of this international system in relation to their behavior;
Researchers assert that among these structural characteristics of the international system
one can distinguish independent and dependent variables, whose interaction determines the overall state of this
system.
The independent variables include the main international actors (states and
international organizations, transnational organizations), the structure of the international system
(various types of political unions and groups, coalitions), the forms and types of interaction of the main elements
of the system (interaction through military, diplomatic, economic, ideological
channels under conditions of conflict or cooperation).
The dependent variables include state power (the ability to influence
the behavior of other actors), the management of force (the use of force by one state against
another), the stability of the existing structure and processes in the international system, and their change.
J. Rosenau proposes five groups of factors or variables that make it possible to establish
the connection between a state's foreign policy and the system of international relations, and to see
the integrity of the world system:
118
1) political personality (their individual traits, education, prior experience, circle of
contacts, physical and psychological state of health);
2) the place they occupy (the functional role of the political personality in society,
in the political system as a whole and in foreign policy in particular, independent of their individual
traits);
3) governmental factors (the structure of government, the choice of political behavior in foreign
policy);
4) societal factors (the sum of internal social variables influencing
foreign policy, such as the level of industrial development, morale, culture, etc.);
5) relations between states and international factors influencing foreign policy
(geography, size of the state, ideology, etc.).
Of these factors, the researcher identified those with a tendency toward slow and rapid
change.
The former include territory, physical geography, culture, historical heritage.
The latter – situational factors (disputed issues, international crises), personal
characteristics of leaders, their talent and experience
Interpreting the international system as a social one, a number of scholars proposed
regarding it as a three-level construct consisting of closely interconnected
structures unable to exist without one another – the material one, by which is meant the power
structure, the structure of interests, and the structure of ideas and representations, reflecting the distribution of knowledge
about the environment, the place in it of specific actors of international relations,
correct and incorrect foreign-policy actions, etc.
Thus, entering the world stage with a certain set of representations, an actor spreads
them, interacting with other subjects, which contributes to the emergence of collective knowledge, representations
and beliefs, which are not only maintained by the majority of participants in international interactions, but also
unite and bind them together.
The system of international relations ceases to perform its function of regulating
international relations in cases where the rules on which this system is based
come into conflict with the interests of the leaders of international development. In most
cases, the collapse of the system of international relations, associated with a change in structure,
and the formation of a new system, are accompanied by a struggle for influence in the world (for example,
world wars).
Thus, the international system is a functional, hierarchically structured
integrity of interconnected elements that exist in constant dynamic
cause-and-effect relations with one another and with the international environment. The systemic
approach to international relations makes it possible to analyze the motivation behind the behavior of countries
and their blocs, to identify the relative weight of various factors determining their actions,
and to investigate the mechanisms that determine the dynamics of the development of the human community as a
whole.
The hierarchy of international systems and its most important regularities
Hierarchy is inherent to any system; without it, a multitude of elements turns into
an amorphous formation, that is, a multitude of random units. Hierarchy is understood as
the arrangement of parts or elements of a whole in a certain order – from highest to lowest. Its
important feature is subordination – a certain subjection of the lower elements of the
system to the higher.
In the international system, hierarchy is expressed in the fact that each participant in international
relations occupies a certain place depending on the systemic parameters that characterize it.
Thus, all participants in international relations are located at certain rungs in the hierarchy
of the system, which is one of the conditions for its existence. Such rungs can be called levels, which
fundamentally separate groups of participants from one another.
The criterion by which groups of participants should be separated from one another, arranging them
at different levels of the hierarchy, is not in dispute in the theory of international relations. It is power,
the most important among the variables that determine hierarchical relationships, since it is precisely its
parameters that determine the influence on the formation of the international system.
The concept of "power" comes from English-language scholarly literature (power), where it
is interpreted both as "strength" and as "compulsion toward something." For the international system, evidently,
it is more correct to apply the concept of «capability.»
Capability as a criterion is quite applicable to any type of participant in the international
system, however for each of them it should be modified in content. In the case of individuals,
personal significance comes to the fore, determined by professional,
intellectual, business qualities of the individual, their authority, financial capabilities,
property, etc.
According to R. Setov, "the power of a state should be understood as the total sum of
capabilities that can be used for the optimal performance of the basic
functions, for the realization... of state interests in the sphere of international relations."
the power of states is significantly more integral and complex, as is clearly demonstrated by
the methodological problems of the theory of international relations connected with difficulties in determining
a single, universal indicator by which it could be reflected.
Proponents of a simple solution suggest examining the power of a state through
the manifestation of one or several characterizing parameters. In particular, K. Knorr (in the mid-
1950s) proposed assessing the power of a state through its military potential, which
could be used in a major war. This idea was based on the assumption that
a state's military parameters are a resultant indicator, since they indirectly reflect
the state of all other social structures (political, economic, social, etc.). R. Gilpin
defined power as a combination of a state's military, economic, and technological capabilities,
which it can use under certain conditions.
A. Kaminsky, among the "elements of power," identifies the following: "geographical position;
the number, structure and character of the population; national morale; the degree of development of the economy.
Among the factors most often considered components of the concept of "state power"
are:
Geographic – location, size of territory, its orographic and hydrographic
characteristics, natural conditions
Demographic – population size, level of urbanization of the country, structural
features of the population (age, ethnic, religious, etc.)
Economic — provision of natural resources, level of technological development,
industrial and agricultural potential, the country's financial system, gross
national product (GNP).
Infrastructural — transportation routes, level of transport development, the
communications system, the level of information technology
Military — the number and equipment of the country's armed forces, their level of
combat readiness, military traditions
Political — the stability of the state's political system, the positions of the national
political elite, the level of development of the state apparatus, the political prestige of the state in
international relations. Historical, connected with the so-called historical reputation of the state as a
subject of international relations
Psychological, representing the historically conditioned mentality of the population.
The power of any state in the world can be partly assessed by quantitative
parameters relating to the size of its territory, the size and structure of its population, the share
of usable natural resources, the gross national product, the standard of
living, the number and equipment of its armed forces, the level of development of the economy (industry,
agriculture, infrastructure, etc.).
One of the most important features of the hierarchy of international systems is the
constant change of the parameters of the power of states, which entails changes in their
positioning. The development of a system is a process that leads to profound qualitative transformations at
all levels of the hierarchy and is expressed in a change of its type, which leads to the engagement of qualitatively different
mechanisms for maintaining stability within it
Typologies of international systems, proposed over the years in the works of H. Kissinger,
R. Aron, M. Kaplan, G. Modelski, F. Riggs and many other researchers
The most thorough typology (though not without certain shortcomings) was proposed by
M. Kaplan.
M. Kaplan, a theorist of systems analysis, identified 6 types of corresponding systems
based on the global distribution of power, that is, they designate the «polarity» of international systems.
Most of these types, in the researcher's opinion, are hypothetical, a priori in nature, and in
practice only the balance-of-power system and the loose bipolar system have existed.
1. The veto system, in which every actor has the ability to block the system,
using certain means of blackmail (above all, this concerns stockpiles of nuclear weapons), while
at the same time, each of these actors is capable of resisting such influence.
2. The balance-of-power system, characterized by multipolarity. Within its
framework there must exist no fewer than five great powers possessing significant military and
economic capabilities.
3. The loose bipolar system – a system in which there exist state actors and a new
type of actor – unions and blocs of states, as well as universal actors (international organizations).
Variants of this type can be highly hierarchized and authoritarian systems, or
non-hierarchized systems.
4. The tight bipolar system – a system in which both blocs are organized
in a strictly hierarchized manner. Within its framework, the role of universal organizations atrophies
and the role of states that have not joined either bloc is not taken into account.
5. The universal system – corresponds to a system in which the predominant role would belong to a
universal actor, having the right to determine the status of states and allocate resources to them. Under a
universal system, international relations function on the basis of collective and
international rules and values, responsibility for whose implementation lies precisely with the
universal actor. R. Aron takes a similar position, analyzing international systems
from the standpoint of their «homogeneity» and «heterogeneity.»
Homogeneous, in his opinion, is a system that includes states of the same type,
subject to unified principles of policy, whereas heterogeneous is a system in which
states are characterized by different principles of organization and opposing values.
For R. Aron, this configuration of the balance of power, homogeneity and heterogeneity are
the main characteristics of any international system
Thus, in contemporary international relations theory there are many concepts that
identify specific models (types) of international systems, explain their structural
features, and provide forecasts regarding their interaction and influence on the overall state of international
interactions.
Features and regularities of the evolution of international systems
The process of evolution of international systems is a sequential change in the quantitative parameters
of participants in international relations, which at a certain stage leads to significant qualitative
transformations, concerning above all the structure of the systems and which may have
a leap-like character.
The destruction of one international system inevitably leads to the emergence of another;
formed in the course of lengthy historical development, they never arise or
disappear instantaneously.
D. Vico divided the evolution of international systems into three stages: emergence, development,
decline. According to D. Vico's concept, the stages, successively replacing one another, proceed from
emergence to decline and back to emergence, completing a full cycle of social
development. Not one of the international systems known to history was an exact copy of the previous one,
but was, as a rule, marked by greater complexity, a different specificity of relations among states
and other participants in international relations, and a different alignment of their forces.
The emergence of an international system is connected with the strengthening of the power of one state
to a level exceeding the power of others. The flourishing of an international system, that is,
its attainment of the highest possible parameters of the power of its poles, closeness of ties, etc., comes as a
result of its consolidation, when it acquires logical completeness.
The destruction and decline of international systems is a fairly long and complex process. It is
associated with a differentiation of power, which gradually "slides" from the higher hierarchical levels
of the system to the lower ones. At each new cycle of the evolution of international systems, the
interdependence of states increased and the ties between them strengthened, the strength of the influence of world
centers grew, and the significance of structural capabilities and constraints was determined by qualitatively different
parameters of the system's functioning
Thus, the international system includes:
1) sovereign states; nations and peoples fighting for their freedom, independence and
the creation of their own statehood;
2) international organizations;
3) relations between subjects of international law – international relations;
4) a special legal system operating in public-legal relations between subjects of
international law – international public law.
Let us analyze relations in society.
They develop along two lines. On the one hand, a certain social system
may be formed from social structures, members and cultures belonging to two or
several societies. Such systems are numerous and varied. As an example, let us cite
American society, where families that have emigrated there often preserve their own native
traditions and values. Something similar can be said of many business companies,
professional associations or religious organizations. In this case, social
systems are created that bear a "supranational" character, since they include
representatives of different societies. In addition, all societies that can be regarded as
"politically organized" are in a state of "international relations." These relations
differ in intensity, complexity, equality, symmetry,
pragmatism, etc. International relations themselves form a certain social
system that can be analyzed using similar concepts and methods. Let us note
also: international relations are a specific social phenomenon and are distinguished by
particular features, among which we will highlight the following.
1. Polycentrism. This means the absence, in international relations, of a legal
monopoly on power belonging to any one state or international organization. One of the
most important principles of international law asserts the sovereign equality of states, which
consists in their equality of rights and equal standing. The international system contains many
independent elements acting according to their own laws, guided by their own
interests and goals, although their actions are often random and inconsistent. Despite the significant
independence of the subjects of international relations, there exist mechanisms for controlling their
behavior, determined by international agreements, norms of law, and the balance
of the power of states.
2. The complexity of the international system is determined above all by the large number of its
elements and mutual relations. Moreover, it is necessary to take into account the differences among participants in
international relations in terms of such indicators as territory, population size,
availability of natural resources, level of industrial production, political system,
cultural and ethnic characteristics, etc. It should also be taken into account that states
defend their interests by participating in international organizations, transnational corporations,
and various economic, political and military alliances.
The global nature of the international system is manifested in the fact that all the states of the world,
international organizations, social groups or individuals, in one way or another, are related to it.
Modern telecommunications systems have united numerous signals from different points of the planet into
a single global information space, and any message becomes accessible to
millions of people within seconds. Events occurring in one country often significantly
affect socio-economic and political processes throughout the world.
Many specialists in the theory of international relations note the features of the
international system. It is, in particular:
— the inseparability of its interconnected elements, which exist in certain
cause-and-effect relations;
- functional integrity;
- the commonality of relations, actions and participants;
— a totality forming an organic unity with the international environment;
— a hierarchically structured integrity, rather than a spontaneous or anarchic
multitude of components;
— not static, but constantly changing in the process of development.
By structure, the international system is most often divided into three
organizational levels: the first covers the participants in international relations (elements
of the system), the second – groups of participants and their mutual relations (subsystems), and the third – the
system of international relations proper.
Perceiving international relations as a single organism developing according to its own
objective laws is ensured by the systemic approach. An important advantage of this
approach is that it allows one to model international processes and phenomena,
forecast their development, and identify new qualitative characteristics both of individual objects and of the
system as a whole.
Modeling the system of international relations. The modeling of international
politics depends on how it is understood, and subsequently implemented, by the participants themselves. F. Schrodt
notes that in the process of modeling international behavior it is advisable to take into account the following
assumptions: individuals perceive international events according to the principle of pattern recognition;
organizations react to events using certain rules or laws; foreign
policy is carried out under conditions of continuous learning and adaptation.
For the effective analysis of international events and decisions taken on the international arena,
reliable and complete information is often lacking. Decision-makers,
in putting forward hypotheses about the possible development of international events, are guided
primarily by analogies, experience and their own intuition. Decisions are largely based on
short-term forecasts, which help substantially reduce the factor of randomness in
international relations. Any changes in the system of international relations are usually the
result of collective decisions taken.
Organizations, unlike people, do not possess associative memory, and therefore their
decisions are based primarily on identifying cause-and-effect relations characteristic of
a certain set of factors preceding a given event. In this case, the phenomena under study
must be considered as a set of simple elements, easy to describe
and formalize. The organization tries to classify all objects and events and, accordingly
to their belonging to a particular category, proposes management decisions, «effective under similar
circumstances.»
Such an approach is quite conservative and does not allow for maximum flexibility in
addressing a specific problem, although it helps to process large volumes of data.
Moreover, the repetition of previously made erroneous decisions is rendered impossible, while
the application of successful actions contributes to increasing their significance. Interpreting the subjects of
international relations from such a standpoint allows a significant degree of predictability to be introduced
into international events.
The information support of foreign policy is a complex, labor-intensive and
costly process. Despite the revolutionary achievements of modern information
technologies, many factors that gave rise to the actions of certain subjects of the system of
international relations remain unknown or incomprehensible to other subjects.
The international system of relations is poorly structured, and therefore the optimization methods
effectively used in designing physical objects (or even economic
systems) are usually unsuitable here. This system is, after all, self-balancing, and it reacts to all
kinds of events, even extraordinary ones, without sharp perturbations, preserving established ties and
directions of development laid down in previous periods. Identifying such "movements" of the system
requires many years of empirical observation.
Only long-term observation of the system of international relations and of the
behavior of individual elements of the system under the influence of external and internal factors makes it
possible to build an adequate model. In this sense, the international system is very different
from a market; its behavior is adaptive rather than regulatory. Taking into account the assumptions
presented, we arrive at the conclusion that the system of international relations is a stable,
self-organizing structure, exhibiting predictable behavior and capable of being reproduced with
the help of numerous methods.
Contemporary mathematics offers a wide range of methods that help
create models of various types: from classical statistical and dynamic models to models
applying the latest achievements of neural network theory and genetic algorithms,
and artificial intelligence technology. Many models are used in international
relations that presuppose rational behavior on the part of the objects under study.
the well-known arms-race model of L. Richardson, the game-theoretic models
used by T. Saaty for the study of conflicts and negotiation processes, the social
models of T. Parsons and others. At the same time, there are quite a few examples of irrational behavior
on the part of «subjects» of international relations, which do not fit within classical theories and, consequently, cannot
be modeled using traditional methods.
The analysis of strategies resembling chess, with multi-move and complex combinations,
occurring in international politics, requires not only professional knowledge of how
each piece moves, but also an understanding of why each piece moves as it does and how the
"political chessboard" itself is structured.
Statistical methods, and linear and dynamic models, help reveal
the properties of phenomena and actions in the system of international relations.
the objects of this system are studied quite effectively using game theory or
the "theory of moves" proposed by S. Brams. He cites many examples of events from the
Cold War and contemporary conflict situations and negotiation processes, in which this theory
works effectively. The basic idea of the method is that "players" choose strategies while
taking into account the opponent's possible future moves, moving from the static situation typical of
traditional game theory to a dynamic one – with correlation of strategies at each stage.
From the standpoint of systems analysis, all systems can be divided into "hard" and "soft."
The latter include systems that cannot be described by strict equations and
relations. Examples are social systems and the system of international relations.
among them. Their study is effectively carried out using graph theory.
one identifies the main elements of the system, the significant factors affecting them, and the cause-and-effect relations among them. The model constructed in this way (also called a
cognitive map) is studied using the methods of graph theory, applying classical and
modern computer technologies.
the adoption of cooperative decisions. Models of such processes are constructed using
methods of game theory in the form of a characteristic function.
using the results of M. Shubik and L. Shapley (for a detailed treatment of methods for modeling
non-conflict situations, see Section 3.
In the 1980s,
"intelligence." On this basis, expert systems were created, which found application in the financial sector,
medicine, and military projects. However, methods of "artificial intelligence" have not achieved
significant results in modeling international behavior.
Here, methods of computer simulation proved more effective.
Given that most mass media and news agencies present
information in electronic form on computer networks, it has become possible
to track international events using computer technology without the direct participation
of a human.
Let us mention the achievement of F. Schrodt, who, on the basis of event data (event data), analyzes
international events and forecasts their unfolding.
using special software, all events occurring at the international level and within
individual states are tracked in media reports, classified, coded
by a standardized method, and compiled into databases.
in a specific case, the necessary information is taken and a corresponding model is built.
In one of his works, F. Schrodt examines the Arab-Israeli conflict in detail,
using information on events spanning more than 20 years and applying statistical methods,
cluster analysis, time-series methods, and Markov chains. Since 1965, when L. Zadeh
introduced the concept of the fuzzy set and the linguistic variable, it has become possible
to apply mathematical tools to processes and phenomena that are not described by strict
rules and laws. There are quite a few examples of applying fuzzy set theory to
the study of events occurring under conditions of uncertainty or incomplete information.
these methods have found their place in the study of international relations as well.
Sanjian, in which fuzzy set theory is used to describe real situations in the
system of international relations, systematizing the factors affecting decision-making
processes, and building models that help identify optimal behavioral strategies in
probable situations.
tools that would allow research to be carried out both "in breadth" and "in depth."
At the current stage there do not exist, and probably cannot exist, universal methods for
modeling international events. Under such circumstances, a comprehensive
approach should be applied – a multilevel modeling process using a wide range of
tools, a systemic approach. Among the problems facing contemporary international relations
theory is the development and practical implementation of the newest methods for
studying the characteristics of complex information-management and information-computational systems.
Such systems can be applied at various levels of state governance, in
the activity of international organizations, and for conducting interstate, so-called
pragmatic relations in the settlement and forecasting of conflict situations. The importance of
this problem area is especially heightened under conditions of contemporary trends toward the formation
of the information society and the development of the global information infrastructure.
In the design of complex systems and their subsystems, numerous tasks arise
that require an assessment of the quantitative and qualitative regularities of the functioning processes
of such systems, and the implementation of their structural, algorithmic and parametric synthesis.
The system of international relations and socio-political phenomena, which are the subject of our
study, fall within the class of large systems. The stages of designing, implementing,
operating and evolving them under contemporary conditions are impossible without
modeling. All the listed stages of studying the international system require taking into
account a number of features, including: the complexity of the structure; the stochastic
nature of the connections between elements; the ambiguity of behavioral algorithms under different conditions;
a large number of parameters and variables; the incompleteness and indeterminacy of the initial
information; and the abundance and probabilistic character of the action of the external environment, etc.
The limitations of experimental capabilities, and often the physical impossibility of
experimentally studying large systems, in particular the system of international relations, makes urgent the development of
methods for modeling them that would make it possible to depict, in an appropriate form, the processes
of the system's functioning and the dynamics of these processes using mathematical models,
and to obtain the results of experiments with the models for assessing the characteristics
of the objects being studied.
At all stages of the creation and use of the aforementioned systems, for the entire set of
subsystems that make up their composition, the application of modeling methods has specific goals,
and the effectiveness of the methods depends on how skillfully the researcher uses the
possibilities of modeling
Self-study questions:
1. Define the concept and outline the structure of international systems.
2. Describe the hierarchy of international systems and its most important regularities.
3. Characterize the types of international systems.
4. Analyze the features and patterns of the evolution of international systems.
5. Describe the modeling of the system of international relations.
Comments