Search results

The article investigates the formal models as a method of analysis in international studies. The importance of this type of models in writing articles for world leading high-ranking journals from Scopus list is shown. The author reveals the main challenges of interdisciplinary synthesis related to the construction of formal models. The problem of identifying the actors of international relations is revealed, including the assessment of actor's involvement in a concrete international conflict (or process) in the context of the concepts of defensive and offensive realism, as well as of real and of latent (potential) power. The decrease in the influence of the state as the primary actor in international relations, and the increase of influence of new types of actors are shown, including international terrorist networks (led by IS), political parties, media and NGOs in the context of post-modernism, global business structures. At the national level, the main actors are illustrated both by the example of countries with a developed civil society and a market economy, and by that of the traditional non-Western society. The question of levels of analysis in international relations, as well as agent-structure problem are illustrated by concrete cases from modern international relations. The author describes a model of "nested" politics. The main types of models used in international studies (game theoretic, econometric, network analysis, simulation) are indicated as well as their shortcomings. Two kinds of simulation models - system dynamics and agent-based modeling are described. It is noted that the agent-based modeling is carried out mainly in the framework of the constructivist paradigm of international relations theory.

Thucydides is considered to be the founder of political realism. Even in those times he determined the basic premises of realism - security and survival. He made an impact on subsequent development of realism embodied in the works of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Morgenthau, Car, Niebuhr, Aaron, Waltz etc. They will call the system of international relations as anarchical one since there is no supreme arbitrator which will force states to adequate behaviour. His views of realism were given in the volume 'The Peloponnesian War' where he had determined the anarchy of the relationships among states. Such system did not rely on justice and morale, but force and power were the predominant facts. He also introduces the category of just wars by claiming that Sparta led a just war against the increased power of Athens, and observed morale principles. Nevertheless, Thucydides faces contradictory, since Sparta itself as the largest land force of that time had to use force in order to beat Athens. He went ahead since he considered force and power as a necessary condition to achieve other objectives, which was later on adopted by Raymond Aaron. Following the example of the war between Athens and Sparta, he successfully analysed bipolar system of balance of power in which the conflict between the leading members of the two opposite blocks was possible in the end, while beforehand there should have been conflicts among weaker members of both blocks. Thucydides explained the manifestation of force and power using example of the Melian dialogue between the envoys of Athens and Melos. It was about the pure politics of force of Athens regardless of the fact that Melos had its independence.

The article provides an overview of international and Russian literature on the genesis and development of System Research in IR studies, demonstrates the emergence of System Research in Russia and in the world, the development of the general theory of systems. It is shown that at the fi rst stage, the representatives of natural sciences tried to identify the isomorphism between the international relations system and other systems (biological, physical). In this context, the attempts to form a general theory of international confl ict could be viewed. It is noted that at the beginning of the 1970s, these attempts ended unsuccessfully in general. The second area of international relations system modeling is related to the work of structural realists, primarily K. Waltz and M. Kaplan. Despite the fact that in their papers the verbal analysis dominates over the formal international relations system model, they have madea signifi cant contribution to the political science in perception of the systems theory. The paper also describes the system modeling in the context of the Neo-Marxist theory of international relations, fi rst and foremost, in the meaning of the I. Wallerstein's world-system theory. Special attention is paid to the systemic research crisis in the IR science at the turn of 1980-1990s, also due to a sharp change in the international situation, and the transition from a predominantly deterministic world of the Cold War to the post-bipolar non-equilibrium international system. The authors clearly reveal the evolution of the international relations perception in terms of the systems theory. They also illustrate the intensifi cation of the international system modeling in the XXIst century on the basis of a new methodology - via the use of the more sophisticated complexity theory (the theory of complex systems), as well as by adapting the sociological theory of structuration by A. Giddens in political sciences. Showing the most promising areas of the complexity theory practical application in the modeling of international relations - agentbased modeling and simulation of system dynamics, - the authors enumerate the most promising spheres for the system modeling in international studies.