Suchergebnisse

The modern world is determined with political interest in both territories and spatial relations. The article is devoted to some topical issues which are relaten to regional and subregional subsystems connecting with new trends in modern international relations: globalization, regionalization and fragmentation.

For a long period of time, the subordinate nature of the problem of regional and subregional subsystems did not raise doubts in the categories of bipolar interaction. The situation became more complicated after the collapse of the bipolar structure of relations. Therefore, the question has arisen as to what might be the criteria for dividing the world space in the new conditions.

It was discovered that regional international systems are very complex connections between existing social communities, the interaction of which has certain features of a systemic spatial organization. It leads to the fact that regional processes can influence or reformate global ones. Different elements of the regional subsystem or various combinations of actors at the regional level affect the global level in different ways. They can maintain and strengthen the global order, contribute to its radical breakdown and overthrow or evolutionary transformation into a new quality. Therefore, the regional level of analysis allows us to study the problems of countries and international relations, differentiate space / territories in accordance with quantitative and qualitative criteria, since the concept of physical and political boundaries takes on some relativity in the real world.

Regional integration issues are particularly relevant to Ukraine since it has a unique choice of its direction – European (integration into the EU) or Eurasian (integration into the Customs Union). Given this, the scientific justification of this choice is of great importance.

The nineties of the twentieth century led to changes in the global geopolitical strategy: the place of the Soviet Union, acting as the second world superpower, is gradually firmly occupied by the People's Republic of China, which thirty years ago could count solely on the role of a regional leader. The development of international trade and economic relations between the United States and China clearly demonstrates in action the Hegelian "law of unity and struggle of opposites" - both countries, having different political systems and social structure, are forced to act as the main partners both in the world economy and in trade. The initiative in developing trade and economic relations with China is still in the hands of the United States, which, despite the availability of the latest technologies and outstanding economic achievements, still have to reckon with the requirements of its Chinese partner to establish equal partnership relations, bearing both material and reputational costs. The United States, throughout the history of US-Chinese relations, often uses provocations and unfriendly actions. The inconsistent position of the United States, primarily in support of Taiwan, makes it difficult to understand and establish trust between the countries.

As the People's Republic of China (PRC) accedes to the World TradeOrganization (WTO), much speculation has been generated about the political impact of the opening of its telecommunications market to foreign firms and investors. This article evaluates the assumptions behind competing views from the West and China, drawing out the implications for international politics. It argues that international economic, technological and security regimes fail to address human rights concerns that arise from the globalization of information and communication technologies (ICTs), despite the fact that serious problems are generated by the need for cooperation between liberal- democratic and authoritarian regimes to preserve state security. To redress the balance, it is necessary to move away from assumptions of technological determinism held by policy-makers, in favour of developing a communication analysis of security that can embrace broader political issues.

This article assesses the general significance for International Relations theory of the literature on globalization. It argues that globalization is a pervasively unsettling process which needs to be explained not only as an issue in its own right but for the insight which it affords into cognate areas of theory. In short, it advances an analytical model whereby globalization itself can be understood and utilizes this as a theoretical scheme that may be applied more generally. The predominant conceptualization of the globalization issue within International Relations has been the debate between the proponents of state redundancy and the champions of continuing state potency. In turn, these arguments rest upon an image of state capacities being eroded by external forces, or alternatively of external forces being generated by state action. In either case, there is the assumed duality of the state(s) set off from, and ranged against, a seemingly external environment. Instead, this article argues that the state occupies a middle ground between the internal and external and is itself both shaped by and formative of the process of globalization.

Раздел I «Актуальные проблемы международного публичного права» ; В статье на основе анализа доктринальных подходов, международно-правовых документов, национального законодательства выявляются типические черты глобализации и обосновывается доминирующая роль международного права как регулятора интеграционных процессов во всех сферах международного сотрудничества. Автор приходит к выводу, что в современную эпоху универсализация правового регулирования на основе международного права является объективной потребностью глобализации международных отношений. = The author provides the detailed analysis of doctrines, international legal instruments, national legislation and determines typical features of globalization, gives the grounds a dominant role of International Law in legal regulation of integration processes in all spheres of international cooperation. The author comes to conclusion that at present the universality of legal regulation under of international law is the objective necessity of globalization of international relations.

Globalization challenges the state-centric realist view of space and authority within International Relations. Using multifaceted concepts of territoriality and non-territoriality, this article goes into three versions of current territorial fragmentation or connectivity – deterritorialization, extraterritorialization and reterritorialization. They are to enable us to reveal the proliferation of globally relevant social and power dynamics above, below and within the state domain. At the same time, they are to illuminate the ambivalent role of states played in an era of global interconnectedness.

From the critical perspective of the concept of "human emancipation" globalization represents an important historical challenge to realism, liberalism and Marxism. Nevertheless, they are not to be ignored in any theoretical debate about globalization in IR. Without neglecting the nuances in each of the three schools of thought we can say that they tend to view the globalizing world through the lenses of the Westphalian order. To the contrary, we are witnessing the (re)emergence of a spatial, power and functional heterogeneity beyond, between and within nation-states today. We can particularly attribute the epistemological gaps of the three IR subdivisions in terms of globalization to their handling of five main issues: territory, actors, interrelation between public and private sphere, predictability, interdisciplinarity. In this sense, a critical globalization debate cannot and should not be restricted to issues conceptualized explicitly under the banner of "national democracy", "national security" or "national welfare" but must be urgently engaged with the different spatial manifestations as well as state and non-state, public and private instruments for the proliferation of transnational interconnectedness and "unpredictability". It is on this basis that eventual fruitful synergies between the three conventional theories, and between them and the reflectivist and constructivist streams of the 1980s and 1990s are to be sought.