S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
167
It is important to keep in mind that referring to the evidence of Islam is not a conditional step or
unfounded propaganda. The research of Arab jurists and political scientists, who interpret the Shari'a
moderately and moderately, shows that such harmony is theoretically important.
The ratio of Islamic and European approaches to the national-legal systems of the Arab states is
different. In particular, accepting or rejecting the Western experience depends on whether European
legal models conflict with European legal models with rules that apply directly to their religious
status in the minds of Muslims and reinforce the religious and moral principles of Islam.
Conflicts between religious and Western approaches to the law are not only possible but in some
cases inevitable. Conceptually, it is important to see the boundaries of their mutual adaptation
(adaptation) and integration. But bridging the gap between them remains. This conclusion is
important for assessing the prospects and forms of globalization in the political and legal component
of the Middle East and, consequently, for predicting its democratization. At present, there is no
consensus on how to integrate democratic reforms in Muslim countries in the Middle East into
maintaining political stability in the region and joining the globalization process.
In our view, as democratization processes take place, tensions between moderate and radical
forces and movements in the Arab world are likely to increase.
First of all, the proof of this was in the Arab Spring. The coal that started in 2011 is still burning.
Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria - all this is the result of this policy of
"spreading Western democracy."
In general, the processes of democratization and development of civil society in the Middle East
(Arab world), including Egypt, are unique and differ sharply from the Western understanding of
these problems.
The practice has shown that the risk of extremism and terrorism cannot be reduced by exporting
democracy instead of Islam. This means that democratization in the region can only be achieved if
there is a balance between the traditions of Muslim culture, on the one hand, and the pursuit of
democratic institutions, on the other.
MODERN APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF MODERN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
SADIBAKOSEV KHABIBULLO
PhD student, UWED
Аbstrаct. The Cold War was not only traditional in international relations next phase of the struggle for world
domination, but also an ideological war aimed to impose on the opposing powers a certain value system, social
structure, political regime, etc. As a result the ideological conflict of the opposing powers became an important
component of the Cold War. With the end of the Cold War the problems of «end of history» and the “end of
ideologies” were actualized on the West. It became about an axiom that the world politics lost its ideological
dimension. In fact, however, ideological component is deeply integrated into the emerging «new» world order.
Even the dominance of Western countries in the emerging system of international relations was legitimated by the
postulates of neo-liberalism. The coming to power in the USA of president D. Trump and changes in American
foreign policy stress a deep transformation in the modern system of international 51 relations. Unconditional
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
168
dominance of the liberal paradigm in global scale is gradually coming to an end. This process is accelerated due
to the completion of the «unipolar moment» in world politics and process of step by step formation of a polycentric
world order. The world is entering to a turbulent era. And one of its main features will probably be decline of
ideology influence and the strengthening of political realism as an intellectual dominant in making decisions in
dynamic and unclear international environment.
Keywords аnd expressions:
world politics, international relations, polycentric world order, ideology,
liberalism, realism.
Аннотация. Совуқ уруш халқаро муносабатларда нафақат анъанавий ҳукмронлик учун
курашнинг кейинги босқичи, балки қарама-қарши кучларга маълум қадриятлар тизимини, ижтимоий
тузилмани, сиёсий режимни ва бошқаларни ўрнатишга қаратилган мафкуравий уруш эди. қарама-
қарши кучларнинг мафкуравий тўқнашуви Совуқ урушнинг муҳим таркибий қисмига айланди. Совуқ
уруш тугаши билан Ғарбда "тарихнинг охири" ва "мафкураларнинг охири" муаммолари долзарб бўлиб
қолди. Дунё сиёсати ғоявий ўлчамларини йўқотганлиги аксиомага айланди. Аммо, аслида, мафкуравий
таркибий қисм янги пайдо бўлаётган "янги" дунё тартибига чуқур сингиб кетган. Ҳатто Ғарб
давлатларининг пайдо бўлаётган халқаро муносабатлар тизимидаги устунлиги нео-либерализмнинг
постулатлари билан қонунийлаштирилди. АҚШ президенти Д. Трампнинг ҳокимият тепасига
келиши ва Америка ташқи сиёсатидаги ўзгаришлар замонавий халқаро муносабатлар тизимидаги
чуқур ўзгаришларни таъкидламоқда. Либерал парадигманинг глобал миқёсда сўзсиз устунлиги аста-
секин ўз ниҳоясига етмоқда. Ушбу жараён жаҳон сиёсатидаги "бир қутбли дунё" тугаши ва кўп
марказли дунё тартибини босқичма-босқич шакллантириш жараёни туфайли тезлашади. Дунё
нотинч даврга кирмоқда ва унинг асосий хусусиятларидан бири, эҳтимол, мафкура таъсирининг
пасайиши ва сиёсий ва ноаниқ халқаро муҳитда қарор қабул қилишда интеллектуал доминант
сифатида сиёсий реализмнинг кучайиши бўлиши мумкин.
Таянч сўз ва иборалар:
дунё сиёсати, халқаро муносабатлар, кўп марказли дунё тартиби, мафкура,
либерализм, реалисм.
Аннотация. Холодная война представляла собой не только традиционную для международных
отношений очередную фазу борьбы за мировое господство, но одновременно и идеологическое
противостояние, призванное навязать противостоящей стороне определенную систему ценностей,
политический режим и т. д. В результате важным компонентом холодной войны был идеологи-
ческий конфликт противостоящих держав. С ее завершением в странах Запада была актуали-
зирована проблематика «конца истории» и «конца идеологий». Утверждалось как аксиома, что
внешняя политика утрачивает идеологическое измерение. Однако идеологическая составляющая
оказалась глубоко интегрирована в формировавшийся «новый» мировой порядок. Само доминирова-
ние стран Запада в складывавшейся системе международных отношений легитимировалось в
рамках либеральной идеологической парадигмы. Приход к власти в США Д.Трампа и связанные с
этим событием изменения в американской и мировой политике свидетельствуют о серьезных
трансформациях, происходящих в современной системе международных отношений. Безоговороч-
ное доминирование либеральной парадигмы в глобальном масштабе постепенно подходит к концу.
Данный процесс ускоряется из-за завершения «однополярного момента» в мировой политике и
формирования полицентричного миропорядка. В рамках этих процессов, пожалуй, впервые за
последние десятилетия складываются реальные предпосылки для деидеологизации международных
отношений. Мир вступает в турбулентную эпоху. И одной из ее основных черт вероятно станет
усиление политического реализма как интеллектуальной доминанты при принятии решений в
динамичной и гораздо более неопределенной, чем в последние десятилетия, международной среде.
Опорные слова и выражения: мировая политика, международные отношения, полицентричный
миропорядок, идеология, либерализм, реализм.
Introduction.
International relations in the middle and second half of the 20th century were
characterized by the fact that the traditional complex of factors underlying world politics, perhaps
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
169
for the first time since the religious wars of the 16th – 17th centuries, was supplemented by an
ideological component. Moreover, as the Cold War and bipolar confrontation developed, the ideolo-
gical component tended to become one of the dominant (if not decisive) factors in world politics.
Many analysts note that the Cold War was not only the next phase of the struggle for world
domination, traditional for international relations, but also an ideological war designed to impose on
the opposing side a certain way of life, value system, form of social structure, political regime, etc.
As a result, during the Cold War, the ideological conflict acquired a largely self-contained
significance, constituted the main nerve of confrontation within the framework of the emerging
bipolar system of international relations. The opposition of the poles meant not just competition or
tensions between two antagonists, but almost a holy war in which one of the two rival systems must
win and the other disappear. The two opposing poles were playing an ideologically determined zero-
sum game, in accordance with which the whole world was essentially divided into spheres of interest
and ideological influence.
Therefore, with the end of the Cold War, the problems of the “end of history” and “the end of
ideologies” have been actualized in the socio-political discourse of Western countries. In any case, it was
asserted as an axiom that does not require proof that foreign policy is losing its ideological dimension.
However, in reality, the ideological component turned out to be deeply integrated into the emerging
"new" world order. The very domination of Western countries in the emerging system of international
relations was legitimized largely by means of ideological tools. Moreover, within the framework of the
clearly manifested itself by the beginning of the XXI century. Of the “unipolar moment”, Western
countries, like a hundred and two hundred years ago, tried to play the role of the vanguard, projecting
(including forcibly) their values and institutions (market, human rights, democracy) onto other societies,
which (albeit in different degree) were ready to resist this and who, paradoxically, now defend a set of
institutions and norms imposed on them by the West earlier (sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomacy
as the main form of interaction in the international arena, etc.)
1
World politics arose at the junction of theoretical studies in the field of international relations,
postulating the integrity of the political system of the world, with a significant contribution of the
neoliberal tradition to the understanding of cardinal changes, ideas about the relationship between
foreign and domestic politics, international political economy, analysis of international
organizations, political science, where research in comparative political science was important. The
set of theoretical approaches in international studies is a rather mosaic conglomerate. It is known
that the conclusion of treaties that fix the limits of the use of force, the establishment of institutions
designed to guarantee their observance, mutual obligations to respect each other's property - these
are the elementary conditions for the formation of an international society. They do not lead to a
complete liberation from the anarchy of international relations, but help to reduce its degree. By
creating and strengthening international regimes (in the field of security, trade, movement of goods
and people, human rights, etc.), the international society streamlines interstate relations.
First, let us dwell on the most common approaches to the study of international relations, realism
and liberalism. Consider the evolution of these classic paradigms.
The dominant place in the analysis of international relations belongs to realism and
neoliberalism. Realism remains the dominant paradigm for all transformations of content and insists
on the adequacy of its main provisions (conflict in international relations, national interests as the
1
Buzan B. From international to World Society? English school theory and the social structure of globalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. P. 237.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
170
basis of world politics, the role of power and the effectiveness of force as ways to achieve and
maintain it, etc.) to modern international realities.
The tradition of political realism in the study of the history of international relations is associated
with such thinkers as Thucydides, N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, K. von Clausewitz and others. In the
XX century. a decisive contribution to the development of these traditions was made by the British
historian E.-H. Carr and the American political scientist G. Morgenthau. Realists believe that the
nature of international relations is anarchic, i.e. its features include the absence of supreme power,
therefore, the states that are the main participants in international relations are forced to rely only on
their own capabilities in interaction with each other. Such relations are based on the national interests
of states, which are governed by the forces of the great powers. The preferences of states are
formulated by their leaders, proceeding from their inherent perception of national interest, the
essence of which does not fundamentally change. National interest is understood in terms of the
strength of the state in relations with other states. Success is achieved by those leaders of countries
who act wisely, using strategies that support or expand their power relative to other states. In the
end, law or morality either serves the interests of the strongest, or is invisible in international
relations. This was the case during the domination of ancient empires in Europe and other parts of
the world; this existed at the dawn of the formation of modern states and will remain in the future.
The essence of international relations is constant, because they are based on the unchanging nature
of man himself, although as scientific and technical progress develops, social structures evolve, etc.
they can take on new forms
1
.
During the Cold War era, the popularity of neorealist positions in the TMT was reinforced by
the bipolar structure of the interstate system, which determined the behavior of traditional actors on
the world stage. However, with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the confrontation between
the two superpowers, these positions were largely undermined. There has been a massive invasion
of world politics by non-traditional actors, a new generation of conflicts has arisen, and security on
the planet has ceased to depend only on the configuration of the international system. The
dissemination of the latest means of communication and information has made interstate borders
permeable. Civilizational, cultural, religious factors and the self-identification of new actors began
to play a significant role in world politics. This led to the fact that in the theory of international
relations, the postmodern approach is becoming more widespread. Under these conditions, a new
version of realism appears, one of the first exponents of which was Harvard University professor S.
Huntington, who in 1993 came up with the idea of a “clash of civilizations”. States as the main
actors in world politics are being replaced by civilizations - cultural communities that differ from
each other in history, language, traditions, but most of all in religion. Despite the mutual intertwining
and mixing, the main civilizations (Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic Orthodox,
Latin American and, possibly, African) are real communities with virtually dividing borders.
Communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor, but Azerbaijanis cannot be
Armenians, Huntington illustrates his point. Huntington shares with the realists the position that the
subjects of world politics predominantly operate in conditions of anarchy, and there is almost
nothing that would hinder their desire for power and domination. For example, international
economic institutions are used by the West to protect its own economic interests and to impose
1
Косолапов Н. Международные отношения как специфический тип общения // Мировая экономика и междуна-
родные отношения. 1999. №6.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
171
economic policies that are beneficial to other nations. In turn, international security institutions exist
for the implementation of political domination by the West
1
.
Thus, we are talking, in fact, about a new post-classical realism. Maintaining at the basis of their
reasoning all the main postulates of the paradigm under consideration (concerning the nature of
international relations, the processes dominant in them, participants, their goals and means, and
finally, the future of these relations), its supporters shift the center of gravity in the study of
international relations from the analysis of interstate interactions to factors and processes of a
sociocultural order. Liberalism is undergoing a similar evolution.
As you know, liberalism is based on two ideas - on the unity of the human race, universal values
and ideals, as well as on the possibility and necessity of changing the nature of international relations
in the spirit of humanism and human rights. International relations are becoming more and more
manageable under the influence of public opinion and the purposeful activities of an expanding
circle of participants in international relations. Along with states, the activity of non-state
international actors - intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, transnational
corporations, firms, enterprises and banks, as well as heterogeneous organized groups and
individuals - is gaining in importance.
The main processes dominating in international relations are not conflicts and wars, not a
confrontation of national interests, but cooperation and integration, conditioned by the growing
interdependence of the world and the increasing awareness of people of their common interests. The
world does not automatically become better and safer, which requires cohesive actions from the
participants in international relations to regulate them. The main regulators are legal and moral
norms. In this paradigm, there is an idealistic component, which has a long tradition, within which
“utopianism”, “legalism” and moralism are distinguished.
The other two versions of the liberal paradigm are neoliberalism and postclassical liberalism.
Neoliberalism includes, for example, a trend that is based on the concept of economic
interdependence. From the point of view of its supporters (Keohane, R. Cooper, Nye), the policy of
states in international relations is determined by internal economic interests. At the same time, the
growth of interdependence creates common economic interests of all states. This unity strengthens
their cooperation. Countries work together to increase their potential economic benefits and reduce
losses. Their policies are driven by rational interests. The growth of economic interdependence not
only changes the tasks and behavior of states on the international stage, but also reduces the role of
their military power.
The last decade of the XX and the beginning of the XXI century. became a time of rapid
development of constructivism - a new trend in international political science. It has been customary
to use the term constructivism in international political science since 1989, when N. Onaf's work
"The World of Our Creation: Rules and Regulations in Social Theory and in the Theory of
International Relations" was published by the University of South Carolina, in which the author first
used himself this term. Constructivism gained recognition in the scientific community thanks to its
appeal to previously poorly studied aspects of international life, the novelty and originality of the
propositions put forward, criticism of traditional paradigms along with the desire to find certain
compromises in them. Constructivists (in international political science, E. Adler, M. Barnett, T.
Christiansen, M. Finnemore, J. Chekel.) Rely in their views on the provisions of the theory of social
construction of reality developed much earlier, on sociological approaches in research international
1
Хантингтон С. Столкновение цивилизаций //Полис. 1994. №1.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
172
relations. From the point of view of constructivists, the meaning of the world is given by norms,
rules, cultures, values and ideas, i.e. ideal factors, which are ultimately primary. Institutions are
formal organizations created to disseminate norms as the result of social agreements. They do not
exist outside the ideas of the actors, their ideas about the way in which the world functions. Because
of this, the generally accepted “meaning” of institutions is interpreted within a shared normative
framework. The existence of institutions depends on regulatory and constitutional rules. The role of
regulations is to streamline certain activities. The attention that constructivists pay to what they call
co-constitution, i.e. mutual formation of institutions and agents, the priority they give to the
constitutive functions of rules and norms over regulating ones - all this has rather serious
consequences for the understanding of international relations. In other words, constructivists admit
the likelihood of changes in the very fundamental foundations of the functioning of international
relations and world politics. This is opposed by the supporters of realism. Realists are interested in
what remains, unchanged, not changing. They focus, for example, on the similarities between the
policies of the times of Kissinger, Metternich and Thucydides, treating change as anomalies.
Constructivists, on the contrary, highlight such changes and analyze how the goals, behavior and
even the very nature of states are formed in the historical process by the dominant political ideas
and social norms (M. Finnemore). Constructivists believe that national-state interests cannot be
derived simply from the distribution of military or economic power, that there is also a social
component of such power.
According to constructivism, as long as the planet is institutionally divided, states as international
actors will retain a special role in world politics. This is explained not by the fact that they are doing
well with their tasks (ensuring the safety and well-being of citizens, individual rights and freedoms,
etc.), but by the fact that the state, as a form of political organization as a whole, is increasingly
revealing its dysfunctionality, moreover, the development of this form gave rise to many ineffective,
even failed states. However, if you are not a state, then in world politics you are nodiv, which is
understood by the national movements fighting for liberation and equality. "The fact that hopelessly
weakened and failed states can be re-established as states rather than reorganized in any other way
(such as colonies) indicates strong cultural support for statehood and the illegitimacy of other
political forms." States exist because they are supported by the great world culture
1
.
Debates on the theory of international relations postulated a positive impact on international
relations of the emerging unipolar moment and the prevailing liberal consensus. By definition, an
anarchic (Hobbesian) international environment was contrasted with increasingly orderly relations
within the framework of the emerging liberal unipolar, where the US and Western countries were to
play the role of the supreme arbiter in shaping and approving the rules of the game, as well as in
enforcing them. The new world order was based on a completely definite and universal in its claims
liberal ideological platform
2
. In the context of the triumph of the liberal ideological paradigm, it was
asserted as an axiom that liberalization is necessary to ensure universal peace and security.
Economic interdependence and international institutions are alternative liberal strategies aimed at
softening the policies of states, creating a more peaceful and cooperative international environment.
From the point of view of supporters of liberal approaches, attempts to change the world order are
1
Финнемор М. Нормы, культура и мировая политика с позиций социологического институционализма //
Международные отношения: социологические подходы. - М., 1998.
2
Ikenberry J. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2011.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
173
possible. But within the framework of the existing system of international relations and the dominant
structures of political discourse, they will be “limited and ordered in ways that preclude drawing any
analogies with the past. Three factors can be distinguished: there is a gradual shift, not a change in
the centers of power; unleashing a large-scale war between the leading powers is ruled out, since
such a clash cannot serve as an effective means of changing the system; and numerous international
organizations create unprecedented obstacles for countries that are claiming to expand their
influence ”
1
. The combination of all these factors limits the ability of states dissatisfied with the
existing balance of power to change the existing system and is an obstacle to attempts to change the
existing world order. The dense intertwining of established rules and institutions supports the
maintenance of the existing status quo. This idea is supported by the results of scientific research
and was summarized by J. Ikenberry's famous statement about the inherent “blocking effect” (or
“rut effect”) in institutional systems, which provides resistance to change. These factors are actively
used by those who aim to preserve the status quo (a practically formed unipolar liberal world order)
and create almost insurmountable problems for potential revisionists.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the Eastern Bloc,
the world in the early nineties, for the first time in the new century history, fell into unipolarity, with a
pronounced dominance of the United States and the military-political alliance NATO. The United States
confirmed its political and military domination both economically, by imposing and pursuing the policy
of the Washington Treaty, which essentially represents the Morgenthau Plan for the countries
2
, first in
Latin America, and then in the former socialist world. The basis of the Treaty - the assumption of the
spontaneous emergence of markets - a well-known "error of spontaneity", which more or less all the
transforming countries adhered to, and which could not have good consequences
3
.
Two key planetary processes have caused the rapid transition of the unipolar order to the
multipolar one. First, after several centuries, the North Atlantic ceases to be the leading planetary
economic mega-region, and the North Pacific Ocean, centered in China, is becoming more and more
so another, the global economic crisis in 2008. In fact, for reasons and consequences, this is mainly
the Anglo-American crisis, the collapse of the neoliberal concept, which first of all has a bad effect
on the United States, then Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, other Western countries, and
indirectly its consequences are felt throughout the world.
This second process significantly accelerates the current that has begun, directing the world order
towards multipolarity. Until recently, instead of the almighty United States, there are already several
world powers, of which the United States is still the leading, but without the ability, as before, to
independently determine the main processes concerning the correlation of world politics and
international relations. America can still provoke crises in different parts of the world, but not end
them in its own way. Examples are the Ukrainian and Syrian crises, and in terms of soft power, the
WikiLeaks and Snowden cases.
Trump's victory in the US presidential election and Brexit are two new key developments
indicating that, on the one hand, multipolarity already exists, and this is changing the policy of the
leading Anglo-Saxon powers. On the other hand, even among them, who had the greatest benefits
1
Уолфорт У. Возвращение реальной политики // Россия в глобальной политике. 2015. Июльавгуст. URL:
http://www.globalaffairs.ru/number/Vozvraschenie-realnoi-politiki-17636
2
Reinert, E.S. Globalna ekonomija. Kako su bogati postali bogati i zašto siromašni postaju siromašniji / пер. с норв. I.
Rajić. Beograd: Čigoja štampa, 2006.
3
Macner, E. Monopolarni svetski poredak. O socioekonomiji dominacije SAD / пер. с англ. M. Kopečni. Beograd:
Dosije, 2003, с. 51.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
174
from neoliberalism and the new order, an ordinary person, according to the theory of the modern
world system of I. Wallerstein, decided to rebel and overthrow this imperialist policy, which is
created by a narrow layer of the globalist elite.
In connection with Trump's victory and Brexit, some of the elite in Washington and London are
now more willing to seek a compromise with Moscow (and more broadly with the BRICS). But it
is unlikely that there will be a serious convergence of the interests of Washington and London, on
the one hand, and Moscow, Beijing and other centers of power. This is primarily a tactical readiness
for cooperation of interested parties ("trade"). Of course, this is also a chance in the Balkans,
specifically for Serbian interests.
The leading EU countries are considering the possibility of its institutional stratification, led by
an exclusive club - Germany and France, and then Italy, Spain. Other EU members, in institutional
forms, would have less rights. This met with resistance, especially from the Visegrad group. Colossal
financial contradictions and crises, from which Greece primarily suffers, but others, mainly from
Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, pose a serious problem for the future illusion of unity, which is
further reflected in the crisis of migrants and the difference (insurmountable?) To a common strategy
... Since these problems will not be resolved in the coming years and decades, on the contrary, they
may even worsen the unity, the existence of the EU is in big question. After several centuries, the
North Atlantic is losing its leading position in the economy of the North Pacific Ocean, centered in
the Far East, especially in China. China through the NSR establishes a direct geo-economic and
transport line of communication with Europe, including with the important region of the Danube
basin. Thus, Serbia receives additional opportunities for developing relations with China, for
connecting with countries in the region, for its own development, especially taking into account the
Danube route, road corridors that pass through its territory, as well as the Piraeus-Budapest high-
speed railway project. The fact that Serbia is militarily neutral and not an EU member becomes more
important when it comes to China.
India is becoming more and more influential in international relations, like Brazil and other
BRICS members. By joint action, they get an additional opportunity to increase their influence at
the global level, although they primarily have ambitions on their continent.
The modern development of the system of international relations, closely associated with the
acceleration of the processes of globalization and the emergence of new global threats, makes it
necessary to internationally discuss the principles of the political organization of the world. Today,
in conditions when “the world is undergoing a transformation due to large-scale transboundary
activity”, when new actors are emerging that challenge the modern political organization of the
world, it is important to use such methods of influencing public consciousness that would be a
sufficiently effective tool to achieve the set goals in foreign policy activity of the state
1
.
The mechanisms of public diplomacy play an important role in this regard, one of the main tasks
of which is to strengthen the deterrent factor of the forceful solution of problems in international
relations. In modern conditions, public diplomacy is becoming an important structural component
of the strategy of the leading actors in world politics, including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). In their quest for global domination, the United States and NATO seek to
use a flexible and comprehensive strategy of military-political influence. Along with the traditional
methods of forceful influence, political strategists of the Alliance pay great attention to improving
1
Лебедева М.М. Публичная дипломатия в урегулировании конфликтов // Международные процессы. 2015.
Том 13. № 4(43). С.45–56.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
175
the use of fundamentally new instruments, among which the mechanisms of “soft power” are in the
first place. Their most important advantage is the ability not to force the opponent to take certain
actions, but to attract him to your side with the help of persuasion, while creating a psychologically
beneficial atmosphere of mutual understanding. As professor at the University of Southern
California Philip Seib notes in this regard, "NATO must channel its influence through" soft forms
"in order to justify its hard power"
1
.
At the present stage, the use of soft power mechanisms as a tool of NATO public diplomacy
presupposes the formation of certain ideological attitudes among the wide international community,
as well as the formation of a positive image of the Alliance as a transparent, modern and successful
international organization friendly towards most other international actors. One of the features of
the use of "soft power" by the North Atlantic Alliance is the impact on various segments of civil
society in other states. The priority area in this regard is the various formats of work with the youth
audience. To this end, the structures of the Alliance organize and finance a set of events, including
special scholarship programs, holding conferences, seminars, workshops, summer schools with a
targeted focus. Examples of this kind include the regularly functioning Summer School in Slovakia
and Ukraine, within the framework of which a program for the training of specialists in the field of
European and Euro-Atlantic integration is being implemented. Currently, within the framework of
the implementation of this direction, the Alliance has created a whole system of interacting
organizations, known as the "Young NATO Network"
2
.
However, the situation in the world began to change noticeably already in the early 2000s. and
especially clearly during the global financial and economic crisis of 2008–2010. Against the
background of the extremely unilateralist policy of the George W. Bush administration, which is
clearly based on the hard force, the invasions of Afghanistan, and especially Iraq, liberal
maximalism began to gradually lose ground. By "wars of choice" the United States has significantly
undermined its own authority and influence in the world. Moreover, in some respects, apparently,
irrevocably. Their proclaimed unrestricted right to interfere in the affairs of other states weakened
the credibility of American politics. "Optional" (wars of choice) and destabilizing in their
consequences the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya undermined faith in their strength and, most
importantly, in their ability to effectively global leadership. Military superiority turned out to be
illusory, since it became clear that with the help of military force (more precisely, solely relying on
military power) it is impossible to solve the problems of the modern world. But the financial crisis
has radically undermined the notion that the United States has unconditional competence and
indisputable authority in financial and economic matters. Delegitimization of the unipolar world
took place against the background of an objective growth of polycentric tendencies.
The pragmatism inherent in modern liberalism was transformed into a kind of economic
determinism, when foreign policy began to be perceived as a technical mechanism to serve the
immediate economic interests of national or transnational business elites. All other interests (from
preserving national culture to protecting national security) were declared annoying vestiges of a
bygone era. The rules formulated and adopted by the Western countries were not subject to
discussion. At the same time, the enthusiasm for common norms and rules did not exclude legal
1
Pagovski Z.Z. Public diplomacy of Multilateral organizations: the cases of NATO, EU and ASEAN // Fuguero
Press.2015.
2
Манойло А.В. Психологические операции: модели и технологии управления конфликтами. // Политэкс
(Политическая экспертиза). – 2008. – № 3. – С. 62–73.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
176
relativism, when the basic norms of international law (sovereignty, non-interference in the internal
affairs of other states, refusal to use military force, etc.) began to be applied selectively (the idea of
a political "buffet"), depending on from current political needs and specific situations. The legal one
was followed by moral relativism, which manifested itself, for example, in the readiness to
distinguish between “bad” and “good” terrorism, depending on considerations of the political
situation. The end of the “fourth wave” of democratization, which did not confirm the dominance
of liberal values either in East Asia, or even more so in the Middle East, and the progressing, contrary
to expectations, decrease in the controllability of the world system, testify to the crisis of liberalism.
One can argue about exactly when the decline of the “era of liberalism” began - during the crisis
of 2008–2010. or much later, in 2016, when the “black swans”, contrary to predictions, swirled over
the horizon of world politics (Brexit, D. Trump's victory in the US elections). But, apparently, the
peak of the influence of liberal ideology and, in general, the long cycle of deep ideologization of
international relations, which began in the middle of the 20th century, has passed. A significant
number of researchers have recently started talking about the emergence of polycentric tendencies
in contemporary world politics
1
. The global balance of power is changing literally before our eyes
2
.
Financial and economic crisis of 2008–2010. spurred the processes of redistribution of influence and
contributed to the growth of the potential of a number of non-Western centers of power (China,
India, Brazil, Russia), clearly demonstrated the inability of a narrow circle of Western countries
responsible for global regulation over the past decades (and in a broader sense, the entire XX
century) , to exercise effective global governance, to cope with the challenges of the era.
In the long-standing dispute between the scientific schools of realism and idealism in politics
about what is more important - the "power" of states or "paper" as a set of codes and rules of conduct
- the decisive word until recently remained in the anarchic international environment for power.
Another (by no means the first) attempt to overcome the anarchy of the environment on a global
scale at the beginning of the 21st century was unsuccessful. The only region of the world where a
liberal world order with a corresponding set of norms and values has almost fully established itself
is a united Europe. But the possibility of reproducing the European experience in other historical
and civilizational contexts raises certain doubts. And the difficulties that the European integration
project has been experiencing lately do not by any means increase the number of its supporters.
Conclusion.
Thus, in conclusion, it should be noted that the evolution of theoretical approaches
to the study of international relations is characterized not only by changes, but also by continuity.
The newest directions have not got rid of inter-paradigm disputes. But at the same time, the
transformation of classical paradigms does not prevent the preservation of their fundamental
postulates. Methodological attitudes are becoming more and more diverse, but positivism and
rational choice retain a fairly strong position. It also includes the ideological and theoretical
preferences inherent in any study of international relations. At the same time, special attention
should be paid to the fact that one of the functions of the theory of international relations is to prevent
analysts from excessive self-confidence and hasty assessments, and practitioners from hasty and
large-scale actions based on certain expert conclusions or recommendations. At the same time, it
should be noted that knowledge of the basic provisions of theoretical paradigms is only a
precondition on the way to the study of international relations. Knowledge of the above ideological
directions will help advance in understanding their nature and trends and, accordingly, in
1
Россия в полицентричном мире. / Под ред. А.А.Дынкина, Н.И.Ивановой. М.: Весь мир, 2011, С.11–68, 157–162
2
Основные показатели развития мировой экономики в 2014 г. // Год планеты. Экономика. Политика.
Безопасность. Вып. 2015 г. М.: Идея-Пресс, 2015, С.428–431.
S H A R Q M A S H ’ A L I
177
understanding the vicissitudes of international politics, because such a combination will provide an
opportunity to navigate the rapidly evolving international realities. In the conditions of turbulence,
which inevitably arises due to the growing pressure of the revisionist powers and the resistance of
the former unconditional leaders of the world system, as well as in the context of the uncertainty,
blurring of the rules and regulations prevailing in world politics, a return to rational and de-
ideologized realism (albeit on how updated the theoretical basis) seems to be a very likely outcome.
Historically, this is, in a sense, a return to "normalcy." Let it be a "new normality". Donald Trump's
victory in the presidential elections in the United States and a certain revision of American foreign
policy by him is highly likely to accelerate both de-ideologization and a realistic trend in modern
world politics. The unconditional dominance of the liberal paradigm on a global scale is gradually
coming to an end. This process is accelerating due to the end of the "unipolar moment" in world
politics. Moreover, perhaps for the first time in recent decades, real prerequisites are emerging for
the de-ideologization of international relations. The world is entering a turbulent era formed by a
polycentric world order. And one of the main features of which is likely to be the strengthening of
political realism as an intellectual dominant in decision-making in a dynamic and much more
uncertain than in recent decades, international environment.
