Цели и интересы в международных отношениях

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, etc. It is easy to see that, in fact, it is about matching the typology of funds which are the poles of violence and negotiation. In this violence and the threat can be represented as elements of the force, but persuasion and bargaining - the elements of negotiations. Each of these concepts reflects a relatively broad set of ways, methods, techniques and tools to achieve goals that are in the real world of international relations are used in various combinations, so the selection of a "pure" - no more than an abstraction that serves as the tasks of analysis.

Thus, it should be noted the increasing role of persuasion and negotiation, in other words, political means in the interaction of contemporary actors in international relations. These tools require the establishment of a systematic, regular contacts and relations between them, leading to an increase in mutual trust. The success of policy tools are facilitated by the parties' mutual interests. For example, it is a common interest in the CSCE security and stability on the European continent was the foundation that led to the adoption in November 1990, the Paris Charter for New Europe, which recognizes the end of the era of confrontation between East and West. On the other hand, the divergence of interests is not an obstacle to the success of political actors of international relations. Moreover, the professionals involved in the theory and methodology of the negotiations, it is in discrepancy of interests perceive one of the prerequisites for success, noting that "a satisfactory agreement is possible because the parties want different ... different interests and beliefs opens the possibility that one or another aspect is very beneficial for you, but little value to the other side " 

As already noted, the category of "purpose" and "tools" are correlative. They do not correspond to different events, behaviors and actions of participants in international relations, and their different positions relative to each other. Specific event, action or behavior is not a means in relation to any, but to some the same purpose, the latter, in turn, can act as a means toward other goals. The mapping of ends and means affect the category of "strategy". Experts in the field say that the dialectic of nature and of any strategy to determine: 1) a significant impact on someone or something;

b) the means and methods of a far-reaching impact, and c) a dynamic forward-oriented goals. In general, the strategy can be defined as long-term course of conduct that connects science and art of achieving long-term goals.

These days, the category of "strategy" has acquired a rather broad, arose the concept of economic strategy, political strategy, business development strategy, the strategy of banking ... up to the "strategy of selling watermelons in big cities." However, in all cases the strategy is understood as the science and art of relating goals with available resources. According to the classic military science, for example, the decisive condition for the highest winning - it's numerical superiority over the enemy.

In the direct collision of a short-term major factor is the amount of resources (manpower and weapons), available at each of the opponents. At the same time, Napoleon won the Italian campaign, without having the necessary superiority over enemy forces as a whole. The fact that he was able to distribute the forces that, for each direct collision had on him a local and temporary superiority. Thus, the successful achievement of goals depends not only on cash, but also on how they are used, ie of the strategy. 

Contrary to the opinion sometimes found it a mistake to assume that until the middle of the XX century. strategy in the theoretical and practical sense, was the exclusive property of the military art and war. Traditional permanent interests of the states - security and prosperity - could be achieved only with a favorable balance of forces. Hence, the traditional means of achieving the same goals were not only war but also "diplomatic-strategy game" aimed at achieving the specified ratio. The role of the strategy of an actor in international relations in this case was the fact that diplomatic means to resist the pressure of the stronger actors, as well as to compensate for its own geopolitical or demographic disadvantages. Yet, a crucial tool for participants in international relations until recently remained a military force. Therefore, the main focus of diplomatic strategy was the formation of coalitions and alliances to ensure superiority in strength over the potential and actual enemy, and war, in full accordance with the known formula Clausewitz, was a continuation of politics by other means.

In the new situation is radically changed. The interdependence of the world, its fragility to devastating use of modern means of mass destruction, the danger of other global problems require the parties to the international relations of a decisive break with previous policies in relation to one another. Changes and the concept of "force". 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                      MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The most commonly used term, which in the science of international relations is denoted by the interaction of the participants in the global arena, is the term "actor". In the Russian translation of it would have sounded like "actor". Indeed, some foreign authors occasionally remind him about it meaning. Thus, B. Russet and X. Starr emphasized that Shakespeare imagined the world as a big stage, and the people - its actors. However, given that the term "actor" in Russian is much narrower, more specific, and the fact that in this its specific, narrow meaning (as the person performing the predetermined role of another character) in the science of international relations, he practically not used in domestic literature adopted the term "actor".

"Actor" - is any person who takes an active part, plays an important role - write F. Brayar and M.-R. Jalili. In international relations, they stress, should be understood as an actor under any authority, any organization, any group or even any individual, able to play a role, influence.

B. Russet and X. Starr noted that the term "actor" has a number of advantages. First, it reflects a wide range of interacting communities and so is quite comprehensive. Second, using it, we focus on the behavior of communities. Thus, this term helps to understand the essence of community, which behaves in a certain way, take such kind of action. Finally, thirdly, it helps to understand that different actors play different roles: some of them occupy the foreground are the "stars", while others are little more than extras, or members of the choral group. Nevertheless, they all participate in creating a complete performance on the world stage.

Social community can be regarded as an international actor in the event that it has a definite influence on international relations, has been recognized by the states and their governments and considered in the formulation of foreign policy, but also has some degree of autonomy in making their own decisions. For this reason, it is clear that if all the actors are members of international relations, not every participant can be regarded as international actor. Organization, company or group having any relations with foreign organizations, enterprises or citizens, can not always play the role of international actors. On the contrary, this role can perform the individual - for example, such as world-renowned human rights activist Andrei Sakharov, who - thanks to the authority which he enjoyed among the state leaders of many countries, and among the democratic public - have known impact on the attitude of the West to the Soviet Union.

However, this raises the following questions. First, what kinds of social groups interacting in the world can be considered typical of international actors? And secondly, what is the hierarchy between the types of international actors, or, in other words, some of them can be regarded as the most influential, authoritative and promising? Both of these issues are, to varying degrees, the subject of scientific debate, theoretical disputes.

Much more agreement there is on the first question. Representatives of the majority of theoretical trends and schools believe that the typical international actors are states, as well as international organizations and systems. Thus, Morton Kaplan distinguishes between three types of international actors: national (sovereign states), transnational (regional and international organizations, eg, NATO) and universal (global organizations, eg United Nations). M. Merle as common international actors considering states, international organizations and multinational forces (eg multinatsionalnye firms, as well as world public opinion). Brayar and M.-R. Jalili added to these three types of another - the so-called potential actors (such as national liberation movements, regional and local community: for example, the European Council of local authorities. The European Conference of Local Authorities). 

J. Rosenau believes the main international actors in the state of the subsystem (for example, local administration of a certain autonomy in the international sphere), and transnational organizations (such as, for example, the campaign to chip manufacturing, "European Silicon Structures", which exists outside of state jurisdiction) , the cohort (eg, ethnic groups, churches, etc.) movement.

However, the above examples show that the above agreement on the basic types of international actors is particularly true of the state and interstate (intergovernmental) organizations. As to the question of other participants in international relations, it remains a subject of theoretical differences. However, a much more serious discussions are underway on the question of what type of actor should be given preference in the analysis of international relations.

As we have seen, for representatives of political realism is no doubt that the state is a major, decisive, if not the only actor in international relations. This applies to all varieties of political realism, although some of them base their arguments mainly on the political possibilities of the state (Morgenthau), while others focus on its social services (Aron), while others appealed to the economic potential (J. Bertin).

Is more flexible view of representatives of the modernist trend. Shifting the emphasis on the functioning of international relations, based on a systematic approach, modeling, quantitative methods in their study, etc., by representatives of modernism are not limited to the study of the behavior of states, engaging in scientific circulation problems associated with the activities of international organizations, international political consequences of economic TNC expansion, etc. However, in the first place, most often a question of priority of an international actor is their secondary. And, secondly, many of this extremely heterogeneous areas are close to either the political realism (M. Kaplan, C. Wright), or to other theoretical schools, for example, such as transnationalism and global balizm.

According to theorists of transnationalism and interdependence (R. Koooheyn, J. Nye, E. Scott, S. Kresner, etc.), one of the characteristic features of the present stage in the evolution of international relations is the challenge offered by the positions of international nongovernmental organizations, firms multiiatsionalnye and corporations, the environmental movement, etc. As the number of international transactions, the position of States in world politics weakened, and, on the contrary, strengthens the role and importance of private actors in international relations. "Globalists" (D. Barton, C. Mitchell, and others) go even further, introducing the world like a giant multi-layer web of mutual relations, joining together the state and nonstate actors, from which no one can escape. However, "transnatsionalisty" remained fairly loyal to the political realism and, consequently, to his interpretation of the state as a major international actor (10). As for the "globalists," then they have a tendency to belittle the importance of the concept of "international actor" in favor of showing trends of global interdependence.

In the neo-Marxist concepts of international relations (I. Wallerstein, S. Amin, A. Frank) focuses on such concepts as the "world system" and "world-economy", the state also is a convenient institutional mediator of the ruling class on an international scale to ensure its dominance over the world market.

Each of these theoretical trends and reflects the school side or the other reality of international relations. However, in order to judge how well such a reflection, it is necessary to obtain a more complete understanding of the characteristics of the substance and functioning of the major participants in the interactions in the world.