Цели и интересы в международных отношениях

Д. Розенау считает  основными международными акторами государства, подсистемы (например, органы местной администрации, обладающие определенной автономией в международной сфере), транснациональные организации (такие, как, например, кампания по производству микросхем "Европейские кремниевые структуры", существующая вне пределов государственной юрисдикции), когорты (например, этнические группы, церкви и т.п.), движения .

Вместе с тем, из приведенных примеров видно, что  указанное согласие относительно основных типов международных акторов  касается прежде всего государства  и межгосударственных (межправительственных) организаций. Что же касается вопроса  о других участниках международных  отношений, то он остается предметом  теоретических расхождений. Однако гораздо более серьезные дискуссии  ведутся по вопросу о том, какому типу актора следует отдавать предпочтение при анализе международных отношений.

Как мы уже видели, для представителей политического  реализма нет сомнений в том, что  государство является главным, решающим, если не единственным актором международных  отношений. Это касается всех разновидностей политического реализма, хотя одни из них опираются в своей аргументации преимущественно на политические возможности  государства (Г. Моргентау), другие делают акцент на его социальную сферу (Р. Арон), третьи аппелируют к экономическому потенциалу (Ж. Бертэн).

Более гибкой выглядит точка зрения представителей модернистского направления. Смещая акцент на функционирование международных отношений, опираясь на системный подход, моделирование, количественные методы в их изучении и т.п., представители модернизма не ограничиваются исследованием поведения  государств, вовлекая в научный оборот проблемы, связанные с деятельностью  международных организаций, международно-политическими  последствиями экономической экспансии  ТНК и т.п. Вместе с тем, во-первых, чаще всего вопрос о приоритетности того или иного международного актора является для них второстепенным. А, во-вторых, многие представители  данного, чрезвычайно гетерогенного  направления близки либо к политическому  реализму (М. Каплан, К. Райт), либо к  другим теоретическим школам, например, таким, как транснационализм и гло-бализм.

Согласно теоретикам транснационализма или взаимозависимости (Р. Кооохейн, Д. Най, Э. Скотт, С. Креснер  и др.), одной из характерных особенностей современного этапа в эволюции международных  отношений является тот вызов, который  бросают позициям государств международные  неправительственные организации, мультииациональные фирмы и корпорации, экологические движения и т.п. По мере роста числа международных  сделок позиции государств в мировой политике ослабевают, и, напротив, усиливается роль и значение частных субъектов международных отношений. "Глобалисты" (Д. Бартон, С. Митчел и др.) идут еще дальше, представляя мир в виде гигантской многослойной паутины взаимных связей, соединяющих вместе государства и негосударственных акторов, из которой никто не может выбраться . Вместе с тем "транснационалисты" остались достаточно лояльными по отношению к политическому реализму и, следовательно, к его трактовке государства как главного международного актора (10). Что же касается "глобалистов", то они имеют тенденцию принижать значение понятия "международный актор" в пользу показа тенденций глобальной взаимозависимости .

В неомарксистских  концепциях международных отношений (И. Валлерстайн, С. Амин, А. Франк) главное  внимание уделяется таким понятиям, как "миросистема" и "мироэкономика", государство же является лишь удобным  институциональным посредником  господствующего в международном  масштабе класса, призванным обеспечить его доминирование над мировым  рынком.

Каждое из указанных  теоретических направлений и  школ отражает ту или иную сторону  реальности международных отношений. Однако для того, чтобы судить о  том, насколько верно такое отражение, необходимо получить более полное представление  об особенностях существа и функционирования основных участников взаимодействий на мировой арене. 
 

Goals and interests in international relations

Analysis of the objectives of participants in international relations is not only one of the most important conditions for an understanding of their characteristics, but also one of the most difficult tasks. The fact that the goal - the category is largely subjective, and you can judge it only on the basis of the actual consequences of those actions have been taken part in international relations, and in this case, the reliability of such judgments is not absolute and is far from unambiguous. This is especially important to emphasize that the results of human activity is often strongly disagree with their intentions.

Yet in social science developed an approach to understanding the goals, which, while not an absolute guarantee against subjectivity, proved to be quite fruitful. This is the approach in terms of behavior of the subject, that is, in terms of analysis of the consequences of his actions, not his mind and declared intentions. For example, if several possible consequences of any action we see that that happens, and we have reason to believe that it would not exist without the desire of the actor, it means that this effect and its purpose. Examples include the rise of popularity of the government of Margaret Thatcher in the UK as a result of his actions on the output of the Malvinas crisis.

Based on this approach, the majority of the science of international relations define the objectives as anticipated (desired) result of the action, which is its cause (motive). This applies both to the supporters of political realism, and representatives of other theoretical schools in the science of international relations, including the Marxist and neo-Marxist currents. The last is based, in particular, the position of Karl Marx that "the future result of a first in the mind of man is perfect as an inner image, motivation and purpose. This goal determines the way a task and the nature of human action, and she must submit their activities. "

Certain methodological affinity observed also in understanding the meaning of the category "interest" to analyze the relations of subjective and objective in the structure of the objectives of participants in international relations. It is no accident in this category, great attention is paid to the works of a wide cross-currents in the science of international relations. For example, the theoretical constructs of the school of political realism designed, as we have seen, on the basis of the category "interest expressed in terms of strength (power)". From the perspective of Morgenthau, National Interest contains two basic elements: a central (DC) and secondary (variable). In turn, the central interest is composed of three factors: the nature of the interest which must be protected, the political environment in which the effect of interest, and rational necessity, limits the choice of ends and means.

In the first chapter it was noted that Aron (and some of his followers) believed the concept of national interest is too many-valued and therefore malooperatsionalnym to analyze goals and means of international relations. However, his position on so-called eternal purposes of any state is essentially identical to the traditional understanding of national interest inherent in the school of political realism. In fact, in terms of Aron eternal purposes can manifest as an abstract and concrete way. In the first case, they appear as the desire for security, power and glory, and the second - expressed in the desire for more space (or, in other words, increasing the area occupied by one or another political entity), the increasing number of people (the population of the state) and conquest of souls (spreading the ideology and values ​​of the political actor).

These days, in increasing global interdependence of humanity, the category "interest" has an important role in understanding the essence of those events, phenomena and processes that occur in the field of international relations. However, it should be borne in mind that this role it is not absolute. 

As noted by Aron, foreign policy of the state expressed in the actions of its leaders, who have a degree of freedom in the choice of targets. At the same time the importance of play ideology, ambition, temperament, etc. quality leaders. On the other hand, their very status determines what they are trying to create the impression that the foundation of all their actions is the national interest. Moreover, some researchers believe that although interest objective, but it is essentially unknowable. Therefore, for a scientist coming from an objective interest in explaining human behavior and social communities, the danger is almost inevitable possibility of slipping on the path of any "design" of interest. In other words, there is a risk to replace the subjectivity of those who studied sociology, his own subjectivity

This opinion is shared by the famous French specialist in international relations JB Dureau-Zel. "It would, of course, well - he writes - if it was possible to define an objective national interest. Then we would be pretty easy to explore international relations through comparison between the national interest, the proposed leaders and objective national interest. The problem however is that that any reflection of the objective national interest is subjective. "

In the end, because from this point of view to define the concept of national interest is not possible, consider offering an incentive actions of participants in international relations are not of interest, and "national identity". We are talking about language and religion as the basis of national unity, cultural and historical values ​​and national historical memory, etc. From these positions, for example, the behavior of France on the international scene may be better understood if we bear in mind the fluctuations of its historical traditions between patriotism and pacifism, anti-colonial ideology and the idea of ​​"civilizing mission" that lay at the heart of colonial expansion, etc. In turn, the key to understanding the international activities of the United States can serve as a historical tradition, to which are the isolationism of the "founding fathers" and interventionism.

Indeed, without regard to cultural and historical traditions and national values ​​of the external poligiki understanding of a particular state and international relations in general would be incomplete and therefore invalid. And yet, most likely closer to the truth G. Morgeitau, which does not oppose the national identity of national interest, and said first integral element of the second.

In fact, the basis of any interest on objective needs, the needs of the subject-or the social community, due to its economic, social, political and other

the situation. The process of learning and social needs is the formation of people's interests. The interest in such a way - the category of objective-subjective. Moreover, the objective at its core can be not only true but falsely understood interest. Thus, for decades in the West there was an opinion about the Soviet military threat, and therefore that the arms build-up serves the fundamental interests of democratic countries in defending against an attack by a totalitarian regime. And though in reality the Soviet Union was not interested in attacking the Western countries, its behavior in the foreign policy field, as in the country, gave grounds for their distrust of him (in fairness it should be noted that the converse is true). In reality, the arms race would not serve the interests of any one or the other.

There are also imaginary and subjective national interests. The first example can serve such circumstances, when an idea becomes a national myth, takes possession of men's minds, and prove to them that the hollowness is extremely difficult. With regard to the subjective interest, the classic example here - act Herostratus, dobivshegosya immortal "glory" burning of the temple. In the field of international relations an example of the subjective "national interest" can serve as motives of Saddam Hussein during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 (Declaration on the need to accede to Iraq, "originally belonged to his province" were a pretext for attempting to solve the internal problems the Iraqi regime by "a small victorious war"). 

Along with the main (root, permanent) and non-core (secondary, temporary) interests, the interests of objective and subjective, real and imaginary, are distinguished as the interests of overlapping and conflicting, overlapping and nonoverlapping, and so on.

Based on the foregoing, the public interest can be defined as the perceived needs of the subject (social community) arising from the fundamental conditions of its existence and activities. At the same time interest - this attitude needs to the conditions of its implementation. Accordingly, the national interest and awareness is reflected in the activities of the leaders of the state requirements. This also applies to multi-national and ethnic nednorodnym States: in fact, under the national interest is the national public interest.

Traditionally understood, the fundamental national interests of the state consists of three pillars: military security, economic prosperity and development, state sovereignty as the basis for control over a defined territory and population.

Nowadays, however, how these elements and the content of national interest in general, undergo significant changes under the pressure of new facts and circumstances.

The rapid development of productive forces, the media and information, new achievements in scientific and technological revolution, the increasing internationalization of all aspects of social life, the onset and exacerbation of global problems, the growing desire of people for democracy, dignity and material well-being - all this transforms the interests of participants in international relations leads to a reformulation of the objectives of their cooperation.

The collapse of totalitarian regimes and is accompanied by difficulties and contradictions, crises and conflicts promotion of European post-socialist countries to a market economy and pluralist democracy, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its many consequences, ending the "cold war" between East and West - all these and many other processes in the modern the world, pose new challenges the international community, making radical changes in terms of the interests of international actors. In the eyes of a generation of people the world as it narrows, states and regions are becoming more permeable for crossing the boundaries of the growing flow of ideas, capital, goods, technologies and people. Traditional two-and multilateral relations between states are updated with new, active in various fields - such as transport, economy and finance, information and culture, science and education, etc. On this basis, new organizations and institutions, which states delegate some of its powers, and which have their own specific goals and interests arising from the very essence of their subjects as international relations. The picture becomes more complex and with the increasing power and increasing the number of transnational corporations, which were significant and integral participants in international relations with specific interests and objectives, related primarily to their own financial gains and economic growth, but their interests are related to stability and (economic, political and military), the home country, global security and cooperation, and other global issues.

In these circumstances, the national interest can not be achieved without creating conditions of existence of the state, internal stability, economic prosperity, the moral tone of society, security (and not only in its military-strategic aspect, but also, more broadly, including environmental conditions) , favorable foreign environment, prestige and credibility on the world stage. It should be noted that the provision of national interest is achieved only when the balance of these conditions, represent an open system of interdependent and mutually reinforcing elements. Full support of each of them is possible only in an ideal. In real practice, not uncommon, and the lack of typical cases of under-development of one or other of the elements or conditions, which is compensated by more intensive development of others. In ensuring this balance is the essence of art and international politics. Plays an important role in the choice of appropriate development and foreign policy strategies. 

              Tools and strategies for participants in international relations

Tools - this is the way, means, methods and tools to achieve goals. Ends and means - dialectically interrelated categories. No, not even the real goal can not be achieved without adequate means. In turn, the funds must conform to the purpose.

The specifics of a potential or actual at the disposal of international actors, follows from the peculiarities of international relations and, above all from the fact that they apply to communities that are mostly not covered by the power of individual states. Different experts called multiple types of media used by participants in international relations in their interaction. Ultimately, however, this diversity is reduced to a limited number of types: in one case - a force, persuasion, and exchange in the other - and the power of negotiation in the third - persuasion, bargaining, and the threat of violence and so on. It is easy to see that, in fact, it is about matching the typology of funds which are the poles of violence and negotiation.

Traditionally understood, the fundamental national interests of the state consists of three pillars: military security, economic prosperity and development, state sovereignty as the basis for control over a defined territory and population.

Nowadays, however, how these elements and the content of national interest in general, undergo significant changes under the pressure of new facts and circumstances. The rapid development of productive forces, the media and information, new achievements in scientific and technological revolution, the increasing internationalization of all aspects of social life, the onset and exacerbation of global problems, the growing desire of people for democracy, dignity and material well-being - all this transforms the interests of participants in international relations leads to a reformulation of the objectives of their cooperation.

The collapse of totalitarian regimes and is accompanied by difficulties and contradictions, crises and conflicts promotion of European post-socialist countries to a market economy and pluralist democracy, the collapse of the Soviet Union and its many consequences, ending the "cold war" between East and West - all these and many other processes in the modern the world, pose new challenges the international community, making radical changes in terms of the interests of international actors. In the eyes of a generation of people the world as it narrows, states and regions are becoming more permeable for crossing the boundaries of the growing flow of ideas, capital, goods, technologies and people. Traditional two-and multilateral relations between states are updated with new, active in various fields - such as transport, economy and finance, information and culture, science and education, etc. On this basis, new organizations and institutions, which states delegate some of its powers, and which have their own specific goals and interests arising from the very essence of their subjects as international relations. The picture becomes more complex and with the increasing power and increasing the number of transnational corporations, which were significant and integral participants in international relations with specific interests and objectives, related primarily to their own financial gains and economic growth, but their interests are related to stability and (economic, political and military), the home country, global security and cooperation, and other global issues.

In these circumstances, the national interest can not be achieved without creating conditions of existence of the state, internal stability, economic prosperity, the moral tone of society, security (and not only in its military-strategic aspect, but also, more broadly, including environmental conditions) , favorable foreign environment, prestige and credibility on the world stage. It should be noted that the provision of national interest is achieved only when the balance of these conditions, represent an open system of interdependent and mutually reinforcing elements. Full support of each of them is possible only in an ideal. In real practice, not uncommon, and the lack of typical cases of under-development of one or other of the elements or conditions, which is compensated by more intensive development of others.

In ensuring this balance is the essence of art and international politics. Plays an important role in the choice of appropriate development and foreign policy strategies.

Tools and strategies for participants in international relations

Tools - this is the way, means, methods and tools to achieve goals. Ends and means - dialectically interrelated categories. No, not even the real goal can not be achieved without adequate means. In turn, the funds must conform to the purpose.