Search results

In this article, the author suggests that in recent years climate change is gravely affecting the stability of the international order. The reason is not only the recklessness of the industrial sector as a source polluter, but also the lack of political will in drafting a global blueprint for creating a unique international climate regime. Even though the effects of climate change are getting worse each year, the selfish interests of states, the realpolitik in foreign policy and anarchy dominate international relations, thus representing an obstacle to creating an international climate regime. The author examines ways to overcome these obstacles to international institutionalization of climate issues by introducing three IR theory perspectives: realist, rationalist and idealist. The synthesis of these three perspectives is that the international climate regime should be decentralized; its legal acts should be drafted from inter-state agreements on specific issues, while its principles should be incorporated to the already existing international legal acts. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author suggests that in recent years climate change is gravely affecting the stability of the international order. The reason is not only the recklessness of the industrial sector as a source polluter, but also the lack of political will in drafting a global blueprint for creating a unique international climate regime. Even though the effects of climate change are getting worse each year, the selfish interests of states, the realpolitik in foreign policy and anarchy dominate international relations, thus representing an obstacle to creating an international climate regime. The author examines ways to overcome these obstacles to international institutionalization of climate issues by introducing three IR theory perspectives: realist, rationalist and idealist. The synthesis of these three perspectives is that the international climate regime should be decentralized; its legal acts should be drafted from inter-state agreements on specific issues, while its principles should be incorporated to the already existing international legal acts. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the concept of balance of power in International Relations through critical overview of Realist tradition (both Classical and scientific), and its horizontal understanding of balancing of power as a principle per se. The first part analyzes the pessimistic phase (Classical Realism), with the emphasis on the works of H.J. Morgenthau, who promoted the balance of power as a principle per se in the hands of international power politics. In the second part, the scientific phase (Neorealism) empirically establishes the value-free balance of power concept in International Relations. By examining materialism and empiricism of Realism, in the third part the author indicates the limitations of the horizontal approach as a consequence of permanently ignoring the vertical aspect: ideational approach and norms and rules as the first principle of international system of society of states. Adapted from the source document.

In the past two decades, cyber-space became the new, 'fifth battlefield' in the field of international relations. Decision-makers and scholars agree that the major threat to national security of every state today is cyber-war, cyber-terror and cyber-crime. This is due to the lack of inter-state institutional and legal framework for cyber-space. Thus, the inter-state relations in cyber-space is one of classical Hobbesian anarchy. This article examines: 1. the essence and nature of cyber-space and its relation to international society, in the context of world technological domination that makes anarchy possible; 2. the main aspects of anarchy in cyber-space during the past two decades; 3. the possibility of institutionalization of international legal system (through multilateral treaty) in cyber-space, from the perspective of three distinct IR theoretical traditions: Hobbesian, rationalist and Kantian/moral. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author analyzes the International Relations (IR) liberal theory and its "interdependence" paradigm. The first part presents the liberal "interdependence" paradigm by defining the state and power as the key elements of every political science analysis, including the IR theory. The second part overviews the academic critique of the IR liberalism, as a methodologically outdated and historically disputed theory. Finally, the third part focuses on the contemporary "interdependence" paradigm as crucial for understanding the current international processes in the global society. The goal of this article is to present the reevaluation of the contemporary IR liberal theory in the "real world politics", and indicate the possible directions of its ongoing theoretic development. Adapted from the source document.