Suchergebnisse

The article evaluates the qualitative changes in world politics during 2014-2015.In the last two years the system of international relations encountered significant difficulties. Contradictions accumulated in different spheres of world politics that were usually treated as latent, arose in the agenda. The starting point of this transformation was the Ukrainian crisis. However, the further events force one to reassess not only its direct consequences but also wide processes at the global level. One of them is deterioration of relations between Russia and Western countries, increase of influence of large non-Western markets and strengthening of turbulence in developing countries. Project of the unipolar regulation, promoted by the US, demonstrates its ineffectiveness. The main point here is inability of the US to secure the stability of the international system without real consensus of all world powers. We witness an active blend of traditional and new challenges to the international security that decreases the controllability of the situation, first of all in regional segments of the world, Middle East and Europe in particular. These processes give ground for reformatting of the world development, and post-bipolar world politics is gaining a new face. We speak not about going back to pre-crisis order, but about step-by-step elimination of the American hegemony in global and regional decision-making. There will be deepening of the fragmentation of the world politics and growth of strife of the international relations that may continue in the mid-term perspective.

'Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissovle' by Lars-Erik Cederman is reviewed.

This book outlines an idea of world politics as an activity of thinking and speaking about the conditions of world order. World order is understood not as an arrangement of entities but a complex of variously situated activities conducted by individuals as members of diverse associations of their own. Within contemporary International Relations it entails a theoretical position, neotraditionalism, as a reformulation of the initial 'traditionalist' approach in the wake of rationalism and subsequent reflectivist critique

This book draws on Daoist yin/yang dialectics to move world politics from the current stasis of hegemony, hierarchy, and violence to a more balanced engagement with parity, fluidity, and ethics. The author theorizes that we may develop a richer, more representative approach towards sustainable and democratic governance by offering a non-Western alternative to hegemonic debates in IR. The book presents the story of world politics by integrating folk tales and popular culture with policy analysis. It does not exclude current models of liberal internationalism but rather brackets them for another.

For half a century, Ernst B. Haas was an extraordinarily prolific contributor to theoretical debates in international relations. His work focused on the question of continuity & transformation in the system of states. His substantive writings are extremely diverse & can be difficult, so no overall appreciation has ever been attempted. This essay pulls together the major strands of Haas' theoretical work into a coherent whole & seeks to make it accessible to the broadest possible audience of IR scholars. The first section locates Haas in the overall theoretical milieu in which his thinking evolved, & it identifies some core intellectual choices he made. The next three sections summarize Haas' main theoretical contributions to the fields of European integration, the study of change at the level of the world polity, & nationalism. 56 References. Adapted from the source document.

Although the agreement of different theoretical approaches regarding the role
and importance of power in world politics can easily be reached, when it
comes to its definition even elementary consensus is lacking. In this paper,
we analyze theoretical interpretations of power given by David Lake, which
in its conceptual scope and explanation of international order deviates from
the established theoretical tracks in the field of IR. We focus on the
concept of authority as a form of international power, which is one of the
fundamental pillars of Lake's theory of hierarchy in international
relations. Comparing the content of Lake's concept of authority with
different theoretical interpretations of international power, primarily
those that preceded it, we emphasized the theoretical advantages of Lake's
interpretation of the structure of the international system. We conclude
that Lake?s theory can be characterized as "non-canonical" rethinking of
world politics to some extent. The relation of superiority and
subordination, which does not rest on coercion, nor fear of force, but on
voluntary consent, forms the backbone of Lake's theory, and at the same time
represents its most recognizable and controversial part. Subjugation to the
force is often read as a dark chapter of human history, a chapter that
humanity seemingly scornfully closed after the rise and success of the
anti-colonial movement in the second half of the twentieth century. In this
context, Lake's study indicates that reality is something completely
different. Former colonies still agree to a subordinate position in order to
benefit from it, but today voluntarily. By analyzing his concept of
authority and comparing it to other conceptions of power, we tried to
explain Lake's view on world politics, and why his findings on authority,
subordination, superiority and international hierarchies in the field of
economics and security represent unavoidable theoretical destinations for
every scholar interested in the study of contemporary international
relations.

The twenty first century has opened, as so many centuries before it, with the drum roll of war depressingly audible. The optimism of the early 1990s that world politics was being remade, and that the threat of serious conflict was receding, vanished along with the twin towers that were so much a symbol of that world, one heart-breakingly beautiful September morning in 2001. And with the return of force and war to the forefront of international politics, so come the inevitable questions; when, under what circumstances, in what manner and with what restraint, may we (whoever the we might be) use force to secure our interests, protect our families, defend our communities or our values?