WORLD POLITICS IN THE XXI-ST CENTURY BEGINNING

World politics - the active factor forming the international relations. The international relations, constantly changing under the influence of world politics, in turn, influence its maintenance and character.

A.E.Bovin, V.P.Lukin

I. Gradual disintegration of Vestfalsky model of the world. At state-centrist model of the world which has developed after the Vestfalsky world of 1648, internal and foreign policy of any state in many respects were separate spheres though influenced against each other. Scientific directions which studied them, developed almost in parallel. "Pure" political scientists were engaged in research of internal political problems, and experts in the international relations analyzed interactions of the states facing, according to Arnold Uolfersa's metaphor, randomly, like billiard spheres. Symbols of the international relations were, according to Rajmonu Aron, “the soldier and the diplomat”.

The Vestfalsky world of 1648 marked itself a historical mark in the world development - principles of the new political organisation of the world which extended then on all planet and has existed up to now “вестфальской world models” then have been put. The main sense вестфальского the world consisted that the European states, having realised similarity of the interests, have decided to incorporate in the international community for discussion of political intentions of each of them and all a place. It, in turn, has allowed to put the first bases of the concept of balance of forces in a world policy. During this period formation of system of the international relations subsequently named state-centrist model of the world has begun. The principle of the national sovereignty has been recognised by one of the main bases of the international dialogue: Each state possesses all completeness of the power in the territory, defines own foreign policy, and other states are obliged to respect the granted right. From such reference point Europeans began to build structure of internal political and interstate relations, selected corresponding to it mechanisms and management personnels, defined necessary political and legal norms.

At first interaction of the states on international scene was only partially ordered through the unions of the states which on a number of directions co-ordinated the foreign policy actions. At the conclusion of the Utrecht world (1713) which have finished war between France and Spain on the one hand, and the coalition of the states led by Great Britain - with another, had been applied concept of balance of the forces widely used in the international relations of subsequent time. In the end the XVIII-beginning of XIX centuries the international role of England increases, Russia and Prussia which together with Austria have inflicted defeat of Napoleonic France are put forward abreast the major countries-participants of the international relations and have built in Europe the updated order of relations of the states, received the name of the Viennese system of the international relations. In it balance (balance) of the forces, existed almost till the end of XIX century when the strong-arm tactics principle again has prevailed has been restored.

To the XX-th century beginning on a world scene the configuration of leading powers was again replaced. Among them there was the appreciable USA, Japan, Germany and Italy. Europe has ceased to be a unique part of the world where the world countries-leaders were born. Formation of new system of the international relations after the First World War has begun with signing of the Versailles peace treaty with Germany (1919) and has come to the end at the Washington conference 1921-1922 which have fixed new alignment of forces in Pacific region. Мироустройство, existing between two world wars, has received the name of the Versalsko-Washington system. After the Second World War termination the Jaltinsko-Potsdam system of the international relations has been created. As well as previous, it has been recognised by a part вестфальской world models. Position about balance of forces again became one of key elements мироустройства. However in geopolitical and strategic relations the world has been divided into influence spheres between two superstates - the USA and the USSR. Subsequently such structure of a world order has been defined as bipolar (bipolar). Formation stages вестфальской the model of the world which has existed in various updatings more of 350 years were those in general. Last years ХХ centuries many politicians and scientists have started to predict disintegration of this system of the organisation of a political world order.

Approximately by the end of 1970th in the theory of the international relations the new scientific direction which object of studying was world politics began to develop. The new scientific discipline is allocated from the international relations, and their division has been caused by in what measure globalisation processes, global calls and activity of non-governmental actors joined in scientific consideration and in training courses. Thus it is considered to be that in research of the international relations the primary attention addresses on interstate problems while in world politics activity more a wide range of actors is studied. World politics as scientific discipline arises on a joint of researches in areas:

1) the international political economy. Thebeginning to works on this problematics was put by magazine “International organisation” (USA) which in years of "cold war” has addressed to research of interrelations of economic and political processes, interactions of internal policy of the states with the international economic environment. In 70th years ХХ century researchers have paid attention to increase of a role of business factor in the world in this connection there was the separate scientific area which has received the name of the international political economy;

2) theories of the international relations.With the beginning of globalisation processes theoretical interpretation of political realities of the changing world was not in time behind a course of the newest processes. Political science and representatives of other scientific disciplines began to reproach researchers of the international relations that they could not predict disintegration of state-centrist model of the world, bipolar structure of the world and the USSR. J. Гэддисwrote about it:“ We never cease to be surprised. The sharp termination of cold war, unexpected war in Persian gulf, sudden disintegration of the USSR have amazed literally all - the governmental circles, scientific community, mass media, political analysts. Together something especially improbable was not that in all these events: cold war sometime should end, in the Near East always there were wars, and future defeat of communism was distinctly looked through already for a number of years. However the fact that all it happens as though suddenly, shows: means with which help modern politicians and their prophets try to define the political future of the world, are inadequate ”;

3) the role analysis in world affairs of the international organisations, including “actors out of the sovereignty”, that is not state structures.

The intergovernmental organisations created by the states (МПО), according to experience of their activity, can carry out following functions:

- Through the state MPO carries out political influence on the international processes;

- МПО serve as a place of the coordination of interests of the various states by negotiations;

- One interstate organisations are used for easing of others or interaction with them;

- МПО are used by the states for informing of others on the intentions and the purposes;

- The documents accepted МПО, serve as certain reference points for the states which enter into them, for development of own policy.

The international non-governmental organisations (МНПО) which sometimes are called as transnational (they operate within the limits of many states), can be professional (as, for example, the International association of political sciences), sports (as the International Olympic committee), religious (as the World council of churches), ecological (as Green Peace), humanitarian (as the International Red Cross). Modern МНПО are significant political force, opposing nuclear tests, a burial place of a radioactive waste (Green Peace), for a preservation of peace and the termination of race of arms (Paguoshsky movement), protection of the rights of women (the various feministic organisations and movements), etc. Their activity promotes working out of new projects for the decision of global problems, democratisation of the world, creation of new international modes;

4) political science, first of all, comparative politological researches. As borders between internal and external politicians in the modern world become more and more transparent world politics, on the one hand, is more and more penetrated by politological knowledge, on the other hand, it deduces political science for frameworks of national borders, having expanded scale of research objects to global level. The comparative political science studies how global, world processes, the general tendencies of world development increasingly start to define internal political development of the separate countries, regions, in what degree and as in them the general laws and laws are shown. English researcher K.Bus believes thereupon that the political science as a branch of scientific judgement of a policy can develop only at global level, as world politics - the political science house, rather the reverse.

Having been engaged in research of tendencies of world development and the analysis of political structure of the modern world, their general political context, interrelations of interstate and international political problems, world politics as scientific discipline has given powerful spur to development of the international-political theory. Anyway, already very few people doubts that the world order constructed on interaction is exclusive only the sovereign states-nations and on balance of their forces, be seriously called in question from other subjects of the international relations persistently declaring the rights and seriously changing sphere of dialogue between the people and their states

In modern Russian researches the watershed between studying of the international relations in their narrow understanding and world politics studying also began to be spent. So, P.A.Tsygankov writes that if the international relations substantially contact the analysis of interstate interactions world politics displaces accent for that role which is played formation of the international environment by the nonconventional actors who are not forcing out, however, the state as the main participant of the international dialogue.

However, both in western, and in the domestic scientific-journalistic literature till now both concepts are quite often used as synonyms. And it is clear, why: the scientists working in the field of world politics, recognise that the states with their national interests still remain the cores, though already and not unique participants of world political process; in turn, researchers of the international relations, being engaged mainly in studying of interstate interaction, more and more address to the analysis of actions of other, not state actors. P.A.Tsygankov in the works asserts that the concept "world politics" belongs to number of the most used and simultaneously the least clear in a political science. One of the main problems connected with world politics, is a problem of its identification as objectively existing phenomenon. According to this scientist, the question of distinction of world politics and the international relations is aggravated also with that, as the concept of the international relations causes till now discussions between researchers concerning its maintenance. Whether it is necessary to be surprised that quite often experts apply also the third, the term - the international researches is faster neutral, meaning that under this name both above-stated concepts unite.

II. Decline вестфальской world order models. The majority of the researchers studying modern international relations, agree that from end ХХ of century the world worries a certain critical crisis which can be considered as “a point бифуркации” (bifurcation), "transition period", an uncertainty epoch etc. Anyway, the period of the certain qualitative transformations changing an essence and sense of the most political structure of the world means. One of the main arguments in favour of the given statement - obvious signs of destruction of bases of Vestfalsky system. American scientific Kohejn and Naj for descriptive reasons illustrate this qualitative change of global political process graphically. If earlier international relations were limited to interstate interactions by today the world has much more become complicated.

On the other hand, washing out of frontiers pushes some national movements to separatism that is quite often expressed in open forms of conflicts. It is necessary to mean also that the majority of the states of the modern world have arisen only in the XX-th century. Is in the today's world and many national educations which only aspire to achieve the statehood. Contrary to a popular belief, not all sovereign member states of the United Nations. Since 1971 that is not Taiwan de facto perceived by many countries as sovereign, despite protests of the Peoples Republic of China. A member of the United Nations is not also Vatican. Only in 2002 the United Nations structure included Switzerland in which territory from the middle of XX century many establishments of this organisation settle down. Foreign policy departments of some the states make the special list of the sovereign countries where on political grounds do not include some countries (like Taiwan) or, on the contrary, recognise as sovereign some territories (in 1983 Turkey recognised «Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus»). For example, on the beginning of 2003 of the USA recognised as the sovereign 192 countries. The most considerable growth of number of the neogenic states has had for 1990th - more than 20. At all неочевидности preservations of this tendency, some experts act with courageous forecasts that the next decades on a political card of the Earth can appear to 100 new states.

The openness of frontiers puts as actual a problem of identity of their citizens. During an epoch of undivided rule of Vestfalsky model of the world similar identification in many respects was based on an accessory to the state. However today the states, according to English political scientist Sjuzen Strendzh, have not the right to demand any more to themselves from citizens of such loyalty (fidelity) which would exceed their loyalty to a family, the firm, any group. Exceptions make only some states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Therefore new conditions in the world (it it is possible to consider transitive including for consciousness of the person) causes problems with identity: occurrence of plural or vague self-identification, and as consequence - self-identification attempts on ethnic, religious or any other soil that frequently conducts to conflicts. According to the International institute of research of problems of the world in Oslo, during the period with 1990 for 1995 70 countries have been involved in 93 confrontations in which was lost 5,5 million persons.

Disintegration of state-centrist model of the world seriously influences world politics, as this model - its centuries-old basis. According to Semjuela of Huntington, stated in 1989 in the American magazine “National Interest”, end of cold war yet does not mean the termination of race for power and influence; probably, it means the lasting peace end. Process of washing out of state-centrist model of the world has caused in the end of ХХ century crisis of the Jaltinsko-Potsdam system, and crash of the bipolar scheme мироустройства, its were bearing design of system, has not caused negotiations about change of principles of the organisation of the international relations. It generates set of contradictions and complications in the modern world which are especially obviously shown in situations of conflicts (for example, in the late nineties on the Balkans).

III. Process of globalisation and world politics.Among prevailing modern orientations of world development the majority of political scientists name, first of all, globalisation. It is one of the most discussed and least studied processes noted on a historical boundary of millenia. It is accepted to allocate three measurements - or understanding - globalisations: 1) as constantly going historical process; 2) as universalisation and world homogenization; 3) as opennesses, “транспарентности” national borders.

Concerning the first of the named measurements it is possible to notice that in the history of mankind development the tendency to the increasing expansion of space on which there is an intensive interaction and structurization of the international relations - from separate settlements, cities, princedoms to the states, to regions and, at last, after an epoch of great geographical opening, to the world as a whole is really observed. Ancient Greek policies have disappeared with occurrence of empire of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) And post-war cooperation in Europe has led to creation наднациональных political institutes, such, as the European union and the European parliament. The understanding of globalisation as universalisation (strengthening of lines of generality) and homogenization (to a homogeneous structure) the world can be dated movements recent past when forecasts about occurrence of global village and the world government were under construction. The global village - a metaphor used in journalism and the popular literature to express representation that all people on the Earth are united by uniform destiny. It is considered that the global village becomes possible thanks to distribution of universal cultural samples, development of technologies (first of all transport, information and communication), world trading and financial systems, etc., connecting all people in the interconnected and interdependent community. The world government as the term means hypothetical occurrence of the world centre of the power assumed by scientists.

Today many authors who are especially engaged in the analysis of influence of cultural factors on the policy or actually political practice, even more often pay attention that globalisation not necessarily assumes acceptance of uniform, universal norms and behaviour rules as quite often confirmed earlier. Т де Montbrial marks thereupon:“ When we speak about globalisation at all we do not mean unification and standardization. After all and designers of the car do not aspire to create the universal "world" car, capable to satisfy all tastes. It is unreal. For example, production of French firm Danon in Paris is calculated on tastes of Parisians, in St.-Petersburg - on Petersburgers, and in Shanghai - on Chineses. Distinctions in tastes, in mentality never will not disappear anywhere ”. It is necessary to mean also that at all the western tsivilizatsionno-cultural samples always extend. It is available also return process. Interest of industrially developed communities to east religions, the African culture, etc. In this sense hardly probably is symptomatic to speak about globalisation as about a world westernisation.

At last, understanding of globalisation as openness (transparency) of borders is better reflects an essence of its present stage. In the beginning borders of the sovereign states-nations have appeared transparent in sphere of economic interactions. The transnational corporations, one of conductors of economic globalisation of this century, have become seriously interested in formation favorable for their activity outwardly - and internal political conditions. L.Turou, “reinterpreting the future”, wrote thereupon:“ The goods can be created in any place of the world depending on where their manufacture will manage more cheaply and to come true there where they will manage to be sold at the highest price. Industrial chains can get global scale. For example, акселерометр (the tiny semi-conductor chip used as a sensor control in automobile pillows of safety) can be developed in Boston, it is collected and tested on Philippines, is packed on Taiwan and is built in in firm "BMW" car in Germany that this car has been successfully sold in Brazil ”.

Soon became obvious that globalisation - much more multilateral process which completely not is not reduced to purely economic components. So, an information exchange in a planetary network the Internet in variety of cases in itself is valuable and significant. As a result global clubs on interests ”, quite often rather influential and in political sphere have started to be created original“. Process of globalisation of end ХХ is incorrect for understanding century as actually economic interaction of national communities - in it are distinctly shown, and political and other aspects in some respects dominate. The major factor of globalisation are new technologies which strengthen a tendency to an openness of interstate borders. Use of new technologies considerably influences the country status: whether it is integrated into the world community or, on the contrary, is in isolation. The sense of the concept of territory as the virtual states are formed even changes, for example, “the Free Burmese Coalition” which is fixed only in a cyberspace, but offers the solidary support real-life political общностям and to institutes. The similar phenomena have allowed to consider development of new technologies by the starting mechanism of globalisation.

The Internet is in many respects obliged by the birth to the Ministry of Defence of the USA initiating in the late sixties of work on creation of technologies of protected communication system ARPANET on a case of nuclear war. It should provide: first, a stable relation between the COMPUTER of command points; secondly, an exchange of ideas and the data between scientists and the engineers working under military projects. Thanks to National scientific fund (NSF) and on the basis of many technologies in the mid-eighties the direct predecessor of the Internet - NSFnet, gradually extended among the academic community of the USA has been created. Then there were two basic innovations which have resulted in the world popularity of the Internet: the first - the invention of the "hypertext" connecting various documents; the second - the software known as “Mosaic” (the code basis has been developed by student Mark Andrisenom), given easy approach possibility in a network. In the late eighties The Internet "left" for limits of the USA. Under the different data, in 1994 the Internet used 3 million persons, in the end of 2000 year in the world was already about 400 million Internet users, now this indicator comes nearer to a milliard mark.

In new technologies the high technologies including information and communication are allocated. Their importance is obvious to dynamics of globalisation. Information penetration through borders promotes world democratisation, decrease in probabilities of authoritative management and an isolationism, acceleration of rates of economic development. Every day all is more difficult to protect any country from the information from the environment, however some authorities try to do it, limiting access to the Internet, for example, at the expense of control over providers. But such policy all becomes more expensive and more senseless. And still, despite the stated merits and iridescent prospects of globalisation, it is necessary to see its complexities and the contradiction. It is completely not linear, developing in regular intervals and positively process. Political scientists find out in it set ambiguous, including negative, the moments. In one countries and regions globalisation in большей to a measure influences, for example, economic sphere, to others there is an introduction of new technologies faster. So, in Southern Africa the system of cash dispenses and cellular telephone systems, but thus a standard of living of the African population have initially widely extended remained the lowest. Many countries for various reasons (political isolation or self-isolation, technological possibilities, etc.) in general have appeared on periphery of global tendencies. Moreover, rupture between the countries, the separate regions involved in given process, and the others becomes every year all ощутимее.

Such disharmony of development, in turn, generates new calls and threats to peace: rather poor countries roll down on lower level; from them there is a stream of massive migration (resettlement) to safe regions; in the deprived countries there are badly operated conflicts, etc. As a result there are “new dissatisfied”, “new derelicts”, on the one hand, on delimitation “the North - the South”, and with another - in the area of population stratification in the developed countries where it is formed, mainly of the immigrants, actually not included in sociopolitical system modern “the lowest class”. This phenomenon is already fixed in theories of "the split civilisations”, “collision of civilisations” S.Hantington, contradictions I.Vallerstajn'scentre-periphery.There is also other very important circumstance. Owing to a transparency of borders legitimate state institutes lose the increasing part of the imperious powers. It is more difficult to state to regulate national economy, especially mobile financial streams (a vivid example to they be financial crises 1997-1998 in South East Asia and Russia).

Availability of the information, strong dependence of the modern world on communication technologies have created one more problem - cyberterrorism. Besides, biotechnologies open control possibilities over behaviour of the person from the state or the extremist organisations. Owing to these and other negative phenomena globalisation is capable to brake or even in a number of relations to turn world development back: to allow distribution of antidemocratic tendencies, to encourage aspirations to be fenced off from outside influences by means of nationalism, xenophobia (persuasive fear before strangers), self-isolation, a mode of closeness of borders. Thus, globalisation, being the general vector of development of the world, unique equally effective various forces and tendencies, does not assume rectilinear movement “forward and upwards”. On the contrary, she can create high probability (for concrete regions or during the separate historical periods) evolutionary zigzags and recourse, generating thereby new calls to the world community.

Estimating the analysis of globalisation by a modern international-political science, it is possible to ascertain that its basic displays are reduced to several groups of factors, cumulative interaction and interference makes the maintenance of most this phenomenon:

- A tendency to formation of the global economic system functioning by uniform rules on the scale of all planet;

- Increase of the financial and information transboundary streams which are not subject to state regulation and control;

- Erosion of the national-state sovereignty as a result of increasing permeability of interstate borders and easing of traditional functions of the state (especially in safety sphere);

- Washing out of borders between internal and external political, economic, information and other processes;

- Distribution for the whole world western (first of all, American) standards of behaviour, a way of life, consumption, leisure;

- Ideology formation глобализма, called to prove inevitability of occurring changes, their positive character and also to provide the consent of public opinion and active participation of the widest social and political forces in formation of a new world order under the direction of the West and a feast of an in the lead role of the USA. A.D.Bogaturov writes thereupon: “it is obvious that globalisation is not only that exists actually, but also that to people suggest to think and that they think of an event and its prospects”.

To world politics and as to scientific discipline and as to the objective phenomenon of the international life the direct relation has dispute proceeding in a political science on globalisation consequences. Positions of researchers on this problem can be divided into three groups:

- "Optimists" insist on those advantages which are born with itself by globalisation in the economic, social, political and moral relation. According to P.Martin, the editor-in-chief of the international edition “Financial Times”, feature of modern globalisation in the economic plan consists that principles of market relations extended by it corresponds to the human nature. In the social plan globalisation promoted considerable improvement of human well-being in those societies which have managed to use possibilities offered by it. In the political plan globalisation promotes narrowing of prerogatives of the state and expansion of the democratic rights and individual freedom of the person. J.Fedorovconsiders as the main merit of globalisation expansion of "democracy community” and social development democratisation in whole, orientations to the right as a unique way of a resolution of conflicts;

- "Pessimists" believe that globalisation not only does not promote formation in scales of all planet of the free market and a fair competition, but, on the contrary, conducts to growth of concentration of capitals in the most developed countries dominating in world economy - the USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan. In these countries it is concentrated 200 largest transnational companies. F.Klermon writes thereupon:“ These two hundred megafirms, a board and which help is the NATO, cover all areas of human activity - from the industry to banks; from wholesale before retail trade; from extensive agriculture to all conceivable niches in sphere of financial services both lawful, and illegal character. Really, for "masters" of bank and insurance business of distinction between pure and dirty money for a long time already have disappeared ”. One of the most obvious negative tendencies of globalisation as it is marked by many researchers, is progressing increase of rupture in levels of economic development between the most developed and backward countries and, accordingly, between rich and poor people, both in world scales, and within the limits of separate, including most safe countries. Fiscal pauperisation (B.Kassan), washing away of middle class (D.Gornostaev), a manipulation people in interests of" global management ”(Century Максименко), attempt of planting of globalisation by means of force (A.D.Bogaturov, K.Zegbers, V.Kuznetsov) as elements of globalisation deprive of hope of democratisation of world public relations etc.;

- "Sceptics" reject extreme positions in an estimation of consequences of globalisation, with doubt concerning as conclusions about its salutary mission, and to conclusions about its disastrous influence on a human civilisation. Their basic idea consists that the processes designated by the term "globalisation", are objective and inevitable. They really open new possibilities before the countries and the people, but thus bear with itself and new calls. Use of new possibilities and counteraction to new calls demand working out by each national community of the realised strategy. But it means presence of the strong state, capable to resist to ideology глобализма and to methods of formation of the global market which are imposed to the world by the rich countries (M.Deljagin, A.Bogaturov).“ Sceptics ”state doubt and concerning a global network the Internet: its uncontrollable, spontaneous introduction and use does not guarantee an influence neutrality on this or that society as“ the free exchange ”on the Internet in practice turns around dictatorship of the strongest powers (B.Kassan).

IV. Possible variants of political structure of the world of the XXI-st century. Obvious устарелость Vestfalsky model of the world and disintegration of the Jaltinsko-Potsdam system of the international relations have forced politicians and scientists carefully to analyze most the general and frequently inconsistent tendencies in evolution of modern world political process so that it was possible to build forecasts concerning the future political world order. Summarising observable changes on the world scene and their judgement in a political science, it is possible to ascertain:

- First, transitive character of process does not leave sufficient clearness concerning its prospects. Arguments, as well as the facts which are speaking well for that the world moves to a new world order, exists as much, how many and the arguments convincingly showing that the basic tendency is today a movement to a disorder;

- Secondly, there is a set of certificates of that during modern world political process is state - центричная the model of the international life loses the value. About same tell also the facts of strengthening of influence of not state actors. At the same time it is necessary to see that the national state with traditional attributes inherent in it (the sovereignty, территориальность, non-interference of others to its internal affairs, etc.) remains attractive model of the political organisation of life of the people which popularity last years has received new convincing acknowledgement. If in 1945 in the world 60 sovereign states in their 1965 became 100, in 1990 - 160, now - nearby 210 were, the sovereignty approximately 20 of which meanwhile is not recognised by the world community or recognised by one or several members of the United Nations;

- Thirdly, it is resisting each other and tendencies simultaneously supplementing each other: growing solidarity of the world in the face of new calls in the field of economy, ecology, a demography, natural resources, public health services, etc., on the one hand, and with another - a particularism, aspiration to solve only own problems to realise the interests, rejecting experience and interests of others; globalisation and a fragmentation; мондиализация and балканизация; association and crushing; integration and decomposition. As practice of the international life of last years shows, objective discrepancy of tendencies of modern world political process is combined with stochasticity, unpredictability of its development. Ignoring at judgement of modern international realities of this or that tendency is inadmissible, unilateral orientation to one their such tendencies - is dangerous, for will lead to serious errors at acceptance of political decisions.

Sights of scientists and politicians concerning variants of political structure of world ХХIcan be divided centuryinto three groups conditionally. On representations of one political scientists, the world becomes more and more homogeneous, mainly owing to development of processes of globalisation which cover all new regions and the countries and, anyhow, influence components of economic, social, cultural, political life of mankind. In such forecasts globalisation is usually considered as distribution of the western models, values, institutes for the whole world. Adjusting in this plan it is considered to be works of the American political scientist and the governmental expert Frensisa of Fukuyama, in particular, its publication “the history End?” (1989). In it this author has put forward the thesis according to which falling of communism and distribution all over the world market economy and liberal democracy marks itself last stage of historical development of mankind.

From this point of view “market democracy” represents a final ideal of the international relations. This thesis has generated polemic and has caused weight of refutations and questions, in particular, about, whether the history can have the termination. However its optimistic charge idea about possibility of the new international order characterised by absence of wars, armed conflicts, inconsistent interests and a celebration of the conventional ideals and universal values, remained still some, truth, short, time. Later 10 years after the publication of sensational article, Fukuyama declares:“ The history has not died. The message follows ”. Instead of“ the history end ”, he writes, the mankind end, at least, in that its kind what we know it can come. The matter is that progress in science and especially biology, bears with itself risk of realisation of old totalitarian idea about change of a human nature and about the history introduction into“ a posthuman era ”, absolutely unpredictable in the political plan.

The opposite forecast concerning the future world is given by those researchers who write about цивилизационном split. And the resulted bases for such split are various:

- Going deep division on western, Latin American, African, Islamic, конфуцианскую, индуистскую, pravoslavno-slavic, Japanese civilisations - at S.Hantingtona;

- цивилизационный a break, but other: on agricultural, industrial and postindustrial - at Olvina Toffler;

- Sharp differences in professionalism degree - at Vladislav Inozemtsev;

- Level of social and economic development of the countries (high, average and low to which correspond the centre, semiperiphery, world-system periphery), - at I.Vallerstajn;

- Formation of six spatially-economic zones (North Atlantic, Pacific, Euroasian, "southern" and two transnational spaces which are falling outside the limits habitual geocartography) - at Alexander Neklessy.

In 1993 the professor of Harward S.Hantingtonwith idea of "collision of civilisations”, opposite to substantive provisions of the concept of a world order of F.Fukujama. In its opinion, on change to classical conflicts of an epoch of cold war conflicts between cultures come. He does not trust in possibility of the states-nations in regulation of the international relations in this connection divides the world into eight civilisations and deduces the future collisions from relations between first three of them - western, Chinese-konfutsianskoj and Islamic. Inevitability of such collision speaks following reasons:

- First, a reality and irreconcilability of distinctions between civilisations;

- Secondly, interdependence of the world which transforms it into “world village”, involves growth межцивилизационных interactions and increase in migratory streams;

- Thirdly, processes of economic modernisation occurring in the world and social development tear off people from their roots and идентичностей, conduct to easing of the state and growth of influence of religion;

- Fourthly, splash межцивилизационных contradictions speaks also a dual position of the West: dominating on international scene in the economic and scientific relation, it at the same time encourages “return to sources” in not western civilisations, a consequence of that is девестернизация elite of developing countries;

- Fifthly, cultural features are steadier, than political and economic in this connection compromises in this delicate sphere are reached much more difficultly;

- Sixthly, world economy регионализируется, there are large economic associations - EU, НАФТА, МЕРКОСУР, etc.

In these and other similar concepts predicting the further differentiation of the world, especially it is underlined the real or potential conflicts connected with the given factor. K.Bus considers that “the New century, … is possible, will be more similar to the motley and uneasy Middle Ages, than on the static twentieth century, but will consider the lessons taken from this and another”. Such scenarios too are exposed to criticism:

- Time scientists allocate variety of the bases for "split" a certain global collision is improbable for many of contradictions "are imposed" against each other, are crossed (the same person can belong at once to several groups - for example, Buddhist, highly professional, etc.);

- The raised level of a conflictness accented in given approaches hardly can be considered as the basic line of the settled world order - it is inherent, most likely, in process of its transition of a former condition in new etc.

In the third group of the variants of development presented by political scientists attempts to combine both modern lines become: integration and a world universalisation, on the one hand, and isolation of its separate parts and areas of human activity - with another. In the early nineties Benjamin Barber, and behind it and others has paid attention to simultaneous action of these tendencies. The director (in 1991-2002) the Stockholm international institute of researches of problems of the world (SIPRI) Adam Rotfeld considers that the international relations are defined as centripetal processes (globalisation or integration), and centrifugal (a fragmentation, erosion of the states). The American political scientist James Rozenau has designed even the special term to reflect such interlacing of directions of development - фрагмегративность (fragmentation and integration combination).

Discussions and in respect of the future structure of the international relations were developed. Most popularly two points of view: it will be accurately unipolar (led by the USA together with "eight" of the leading states) or multipolar (with the leading centres of force in various regions). At the same time, the majority of the scientists describing the future мироустройство with use of concept of polarisation, proceed only from the factor of powers (or their unions as force centres), so, недоучитывают the realities connected with the vigorous activity of not state actors on a world scene. Unlike them, J. Розенау assumes that the political structure of world ХХI will remind century, probably, in a special way organised network - on similarity of the Internet - with set of knots and interlacings. But all the same the world on a threshold of the third millenium still remains is state - центричным though there are also not state centres. It seems that modern technologies not only form the new world, but also change our representations about it and images of a world order. Earlier the world was described by the metaphors taken from the classical mechanics, physics and chemistry where the kernel and certain "periphery" were the main structural elements. Now for fixing of formed global structure look for images already from sphere of the most up-to-date technologies: the world, in particular, acts as difficult network "web", like the Internet.

Мунтян перевод 20

МИРОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКА В НАЧАЛЕ XXI ВЕКА

Мировая политика – активный фактор, формирующий международные отношения. Международные отношения, постоянно изменяясь под воздействием мировой политики, в свою очередь, влияют на ее содержание и характер.

А.Е. Бовин, В.П. Лукин

I. Постепенный распад Вестфальской модели мира. При государственно-центристской модели мира, которая сложилась после Вестфальского мира 1648 года, внутренняя и внешняя политика какого-либо государства во многом были раздельными сферами, хотя и влияли друг на друга. Научные направления, которые их изучали, развивались чуть ли не параллельно. “Чистые” политологи занимались исследованием внутриполитических проблем, а специалисты по международным отношениям анализировали взаимодействия государств, сталкивавшихся, согласно метафоре Арнольда Уолферса, беспорядочно, подобно бильярдным шарам. Символами международных отношений были, согласно Раймону Арону, “солдат и дипломат”.

Вестфальский мир 1648 года знаменовал собой историческую веху во всемирном развитии – именно тогда были заложены принципы новой политической организации мира, распространившейся затем по всей планете и просуществовавшей до наших дней “вестфальской модели мира”. Главный смысл вестфальского мира заключался в том, что европейские государства, осознав сходство своих интересов, решили соединиться в международное сообщество для обсуждения политических намерений каждого из них и всех месте. Это, в свою очередь, позволило заложить первые основы концепции равновесия сил в международной политике. В этот период началось становление системы международных отношений, впоследствии названной государственно-центристской моделью мира. Принцип национального суверенитета был признан одним из главных оснований международного общения: каждое государство обладает всей полнотой власти на своей территории, определяет собственную внешнюю политику, а другие государства обязаны уважать данное право. Именно с такой точки отсчета европейцы стали выстраивать структуру внутриполитических и межгосударственных отношений, подбирали соответствующую ей механизмы и аппараты управления, определяли необходимые политические и юридические нормы.

Сначала взаимодействие государств на международной арене лишь частично упорядочивалось через союзы государств, которые по ряду направлений согласовывали свои внешнеполитические акции. При заключении Утрехтского мира (1713), завершившего войну между Францией и Испанией с одной стороны, и коалицией государств во главе с Великобританией – с другой, было применено понятие баланса сил, широко использовавшегося в международных отношениях последующего времени. В конце XVIII-начале XIX веков возрастает международная роль Англии, выдвигаются в ряд важнейших стран-участниц международных отношений Россия и Пруссия, которые вместе с Австрией нанесли поражение наполеоновской Франции и выстроили в Европе обновленный порядок отношений государств, получивший название Венской системы международных отношений. В ней было восстановлено равновесие (баланс) сил, просуществовавший почти до конца XIX столетия, когда вновь возобладал принцип силовой политики.

К началу ХХ века на мировой сцене опять сменилась конфигурация ведущих держав. В их числе стали заметными США, Япония, Германия и Италия. Европа перестала быть единственной частью света, где рождались страны-лидеры мира. Формирование новой системы международных отношений после первой мировой войны началось с подписания Версальского мирного договора с Германией (1919) и завершилось на Вашингтонской конференции 1921-1922 гг., закрепившей новую расстановку сил в Тихоокеанском регионе. Мироустройство, существовавшее между двумя мировыми войнами, получило название Версальско-Вашингтонской системы. После окончания второй мировой войны была создана Ялтинско-Потсдамская система международных отношений. Как и предыдущие, она была признана частью вестфальской модели мира. Положение о балансе сил опять стало одним из ключевых элементов мироустройства. Однако в геополитическом и военно-стратегическом отношениях мир был разделен на сферы влияния между двумя сверхдержавами – США и СССР. Впоследствии такая структура миропорядка была определена как биполярная (двухполюсная). Таковыми были в общих чертах этапы становления вестфальской модели мира, просуществовавшей в различных модификациях более 350 лет. В последние годы ХХ столетия многие политики и ученые начали прогнозировать распад этой системы организации политического миропорядка.

Примерно к концу 1970-х гг. в теории международных отношений стало складываться новое научное направление, объектом изучения которого являлась мировая политика. Новая научная дисциплина выделяется из международных отношений, причем их разделение было обусловлено тем, в какой мере процессы глобализации, глобальные вызовы и деятельность неправительственных акторов включались в научное рассмотрение и в учебные курсы. При этом принято считать, что в исследовании международных отношений преимущественное внимание обращается на межгосударственные проблемы, в то время как в мировой политике изучается деятельность более широкого круга акторов. Мировая политика в качестве научной дисциплины возникает на стыке исследований в областях:

1) международной политической экономии.Начало работам по этой проблематике положил журнал “Международная организация” (США), который в годы “холодной войны” обратился к исследованию взаимосвязей экономических и политических процессов, взаимодействия внутренней политики государств с международной экономической средой. В 70-е годы ХХ в. исследователи обратили внимание на возрастание роли экономического фактора в мире, в связи с чем возникла отдельная научная область, получившая название международной политической экономии;

2) теории международных отношений.С началом глобализационных процессов теоретическая интерпретация политических реалий менявшегося мира не успевала за ходом новейших процессов. Политологии и представители других научных дисциплин стали упрекать исследователей международных отношений, что они не смогли предсказать распада государственно-центристской модели мира, биполярной структуры мира и СССР. Дж. Гэддисписал по этому поводу: “Мы никогда не перестаем удивляться. Резкое окончание холодной войны, неожиданная война в Персидском заливе, внезапный распад СССР поразили буквально всех – правительственные круги, научное сообщество, средства массовой информации, политических аналитиков. Вместе тем во всех этих событиях не было чего-то особенно невероятного: холодная война когда-нибудь должна была закончиться, на Ближнем Востоке всегда были войны, а грядущее поражение коммунизма отчетливо просматривалось уже в течение ряда лет. Однако сам факт, что все это случилось как бы вдруг, показывает: средства, с помощью которых современные политики и их пророки пытаются определить политическое будущее мира, неадекватны”;

3) анализа роли в мировых делах международных организаций, в том числе и “акторов вне суверенитета”, то есть негосударственных структур.

Создаваемые государствами межправительственные организации (МПО), согласно опыту их деятельности, могут выполнять следующие функции:

- через МПО государство осуществляет политическое влияние на международные процессы;

- МПО служат местом согласования интересов различных государств путем переговоров;

- одни межгосударственные организации используются для ослабления других или взаимодействия с ними;

- МПО используются государствами для информирования других о своих намерениях и целях;

- документы, принимаемые МПО, служат некими ориентирами для государств, которые входят в них, для выработки собственной политики.

Международные неправительственные организации (МНПО), которые иногда называются транснациональными (они действуют в рамках многих государств), могут быть профессиональными (как, например, Международная ассоциация политических наук), спортивными (как Международный олимпийский комитет), религиозными (как Всемирный совет церквей), экологические (как Гринпис), гуманитарные (как Международный Красный Крест). Современные МНПО являются значимой политической силой, выступая против ядерных испытаний, захоронения радиоактивных отходов (Гринпис), за сохранение мира и прекращение гонки вооружений (Пагуошское движение), защиту прав женщин (различные феминистские организации и движения) и т.п. Их деятельность способствует разработке новых проектов для решения глобальных проблем, демократизации мира, создания новых международных режимов;

4) политологии, прежде всего, сравнительных политологических исследований. Поскольку границы между внутренней и внешней политиков в современном мире становятся все более прозрачными, то мировая политика, с одной стороны, все более пронизывается политологическими знаниями, с другой стороны, она выводит политологию за рамки национальных границ, расширив масштаб исследовательских объектов до глобального уровня. Сравнительная политология изучает то, как глобальные, мировые процессы, общие тенденции мирового развития все в большей мере начинают определять внутриполитическое развитие отдельных стран, регионов, в какой степени и как в них проявляются общие законы и закономерности. Английский исследователь К. Бусполагает в этой связи, что политическая наука как ветвь научного осмысления политики может развиваться только на глобальном уровне, так как именно мировая политика – дом политологии, а не наоборот.

Занявшись исследованием тенденций мирового развития и анализа политической структуры современного мира, их общего политического контекста, взаимосвязей внутригосударственных и международных политических проблем, мировая политика как научная дисциплина дала мощный толчок развитию международно-политической теории. Во всяком случае, сейчас уже мало кто сомневается в том, что мировой порядок, построенный на взаимодействии исключительно только суверенных государств-наций и на балансе их сил, серьезно подвергнут сомнению со стороны других субъектов международных отношений, настойчиво заявляющих о своих правах и серьезно меняющих сферу общения между народами и их государствами

В современных российских исследованиях также стал проводиться водораздел между изучением международных отношений в узком их понимании и изучением мировой политики. Так, П.А. Цыганков пишет, что если международные отношения в значительной степени связываются с анализом межгосударственных взаимодействий, то мировая политика смещает акцент на ту роль, которую играют в формировании международной среды нетрадиционные акторы, не вытесняющие, однако, государство как главного участника международного общения.

Правда, и в западной, и в отечественной научно-публицистической литературе до сих пор оба понятия нередко используются в качестве синонимов. И понятно, почему: ученые, работающие в области мировой политики, признают, что государства с их национальными интересами по-прежнему остаются основными, хотя уже и не единственными участниками мирового политического процесса; в свою очередь, исследователи международных отношений, занимаясь главным образом изучением межгосударственного взаимодействия, все более обращаются к анализу действий иных, негосударственных акторов. П.А. Цыганков в своих работах утверждает, что понятие “мировая политика” принадлежит к числу наиболее употребляемых и одновременно наименее ясных в политической науке. Одна из главных проблем, связанных с мировой политикой, является проблема ее идентификации как объективно существующего феномена. По мнению этого ученого, вопрос различения мировой политики и международных отношений усугубляется еще и тем, что и само понятие международных отношений до сих пор вызывает дискуссии между исследователями относительно его содержания. Стоит ли удивляться, что нередко специалисты применяют и третий, скорее нейтральный, термин — международные исследования, имея в виду, что под этим названием объединяются оба вышеуказанные понятия.

II. Упадок вестфальской модели миропорядка. Большинство исследователей, изучающих современные международные отношения, соглашаются с тем, что с конца ХХ столетия мир переживает некий критический перелом, который может рассматриваться как “точка бифуркации” (раздвоения), “переходный период”, эпоха неопределенности и т.д. В любом случае, имеется в виду период неких качественных преобразований, меняющих суть и смысл самой политической структуры мира. Один из главных аргументов в пользу данного утверждения — очевидные признаки разрушения основ Вестфальской системы. Американские ученые Кохейн и Най для наглядности иллюстрируют это качественное изменение глобального политического процесса графически. Если ранее международные отношения ограничивались межгосударственными взаимодействиями, то к сегодняшнему дню мир намного усложнился.

С другой стороны, размывание государственных границ толкает некоторые национальные движения к сепаратизму, что нередко выражается в открытых формах конфликтов. Нужно также иметь в виду, что большинство государств современного мира возникли только в ХХ веке. Есть в сегодняшнем мире и немало национальных образований, которые только стремятся добиться статуса государства. Вопреки распространенному мнению, не все суверенные государства — члены ООН. С 1971 года таковым не является Тайвань, де-факто воспринимаемый многими странами как суверенный, несмотря на протесты КНР. Членом ООН не является также Ватикан. Только в 2002 году в состав ООН вошла Швейцария, на территории которой с середины XX в. располагаются многие учреждения этой организации. Внешнеполитические ведомства ряда государств составляют особый список суверенных стран, куда по политическим мотивам не включают некоторые страны (вроде Тайваня) или, наоборот, признают суверенными некоторые территории (в 1983 г. Турция признала «Турецкую республику Северного Кипра»). Например, на начало 2003 года США признавали в качестве суверенных 192 страны. Самый значительный рост числа новообразованных государств пришелся на 1990-е гг. — более 20. При всей неочевидности сохранения этой тенденции, некоторые эксперты выступают со смелыми прогнозами о том, что в ближайшие десятилетия на политической карте Земли могут появиться до 100 новых государств.

Открытость государственных границ ставит в качестве актуальных проблему идентичности их граждан. В эпоху безраздельного господства Вестфальской модели мира подобная идентификация во многом основывалась на принадлежности к государству. Однако сегодня государства, по мнению английского политолога Сьюзен Стрендж, уже не вправе требовать к себе от граждан такой лояльности (верности), которая бы превышала их лояльность к семье, фирме, какой-либо группе. Исключения составляют лишь некоторые государства вроде КНДР. Поэтому новая обстановка в мире (ее можно считать переходной, в том числе и для сознания человека) вызывает проблемы с идентичностью: появлением множественной либо неотчетливой самоидентификации, а как следствие — попытками самоотождествления на этнической, религиозной или какой-то иной почве, что зачастую ведет к конфликтам. По данным Международного института исследования проблем мира в Осло, в период с 1990 по 1995 гг. 70 стран были вовлечены в 93 вооруженных конфликта, в которых погибло 5,5 млн. человек.

Распад государственно-центристской модели мира серьезно воздействует на мировую политику, так как эта модель — ее многовековая основа. По мнению СэмюэлаХантингтона, высказанному еще в 1989 г. в американском журнале “National Interest”, завершение холодной войны еще не означает окончание борьбы за власть и влияние; возможно, это означает конец длительного мира. Процесс размывания государственно-центристской модели мира вызвал в конце ХХ в. кризис Ялтинско-Потсдамской системы, а крах биполярной схемы мироустройства, являвшейся ее несущей конструкцией системы, не повлек за собой переговоры об изменении принципов организации международных отношений. Это порождает множество противоречий и осложнений в современном мире, которые особенно явно проявляются в ситуациях конфликтов (например, в конце 1990-х гг. на Балканах).

III. Процесс глобализации и мировая политика.Среди преобладающих современных ориентаций мирового развития большинство политологов называют, прежде всего, глобализацию. Это — один из самых обсуждаемых и наименее изученных процессов, отмеченных на историческом