Realism has been the dominant international relations theory for nearly seven decades focusing almost exclusively on power politics among states, but throughout these years the mankind has passed major technological, societal and economic transitions that also had their impact on the political sphere, including international politics. In public discourse these transitions are usually associatied with the terms "information society" or "global information revolution", whereas political scientists from their part started to use such concepts as "informational (or soft) power", "information warfare", or "information security", refering to a qualitative change in the nature of these traditional variables in political analysis. This article focuses on power, the main variable in the (neo)realist perspective, thus revising the relevance of the theory itself in the context of the information revolution of the 21st century. Although national power resources and consequently international power politics have recently been transforming and taking new forms, mostly involving soft power instruments and the modernization of national economies and militaries, the fundamental (neo)realist assumptions about the competitive nature of international politics are still valid in the information age.
Realism has been the dominant international relations theory for nearly seven decades focusing almost exclusively on power politics among states, but throughout these years the mankind has passed major technological, societal and economic transitions that also had their impact on the political sphere, including international politics. In public discourse these transitions are usually associatied with the terms "information society" or "global information revolution", whereas political scientists from their part started to use such concepts as "informational (or soft) power", "information warfare", or "information security", refering to a qualitative change in the nature of these traditional variables in political analysis. This article focuses on power, the main variable in the (neo)realist perspective, thus revising the relevance of the theory itself in the context of the information revolution of the 21st century. Although national power resources and consequently international power politics have recently been transforming and taking new forms, mostly involving soft power instruments and the modernization of national economies and militaries, the fundamental (neo)realist assumptions about the competitive nature of international politics are still valid in the information age.
Realism has been the dominant international relations theory for nearly seven decades focusing almost exclusively on power politics among states, but throughout these years the mankind has passed major technological, societal and economic transitions that also had their impact on the political sphere, including international politics. In public discourse these transitions are usually associatied with the terms "information society" or "global information revolution", whereas political scientists from their part started to use such concepts as "informational (or soft) power", "information warfare", or "information security", refering to a qualitative change in the nature of these traditional variables in political analysis. This article focuses on power, the main variable in the (neo)realist perspective, thus revising the relevance of the theory itself in the context of the information revolution of the 21st century. Although national power resources and consequently international power politics have recently been transforming and taking new forms, mostly involving soft power instruments and the modernization of national economies and militaries, the fundamental (neo)realist assumptions about the competitive nature of international politics are still valid in the information age.
International relations can be considered as a set of interactions between the actors of international system. As a result of these interactions some actors gain a reputation of reliable and stable while the others perform as irrational and unpredictable. The main goal of these masters' theses was to identify when and how should the seemingly "irrational" behavior of the international actor be considered as a rational strategy aiming at some certain objectives. The subject of this research is the interactions between two states in which the structural and comparative power of the one state is lower than the one of the other. Under these circumstances the state which possesses lower power seeks to raise it in relation to the stronger state. The author of this research hypothesizes that the aim of the behavior which seems irrational to the other players of the international system may be the creation of the conditions of uncertainty. The later can be used as a means of rising structural power of the actor who necessitated it. The Author approaches the logic of the theory of rational choice as well as examines the prospects of using the particular models of game theory as a tool of analyzing the abovementioned interactions of two states the structural and comparative power of which is notably unequal. After analyzing the impact of imperfect information as well as the mistrust in the rationality of the partners of the game, the Author comes to conclusion that the abovementioned factors may be intentionally encouraged to bind the rationality of the adversary.
International relations can be considered as a set of interactions between the actors of international system. As a result of these interactions some actors gain a reputation of reliable and stable while the others perform as irrational and unpredictable. The main goal of these masters' theses was to identify when and how should the seemingly "irrational" behavior of the international actor be considered as a rational strategy aiming at some certain objectives. The subject of this research is the interactions between two states in which the structural and comparative power of the one state is lower than the one of the other. Under these circumstances the state which possesses lower power seeks to raise it in relation to the stronger state. The author of this research hypothesizes that the aim of the behavior which seems irrational to the other players of the international system may be the creation of the conditions of uncertainty. The later can be used as a means of rising structural power of the actor who necessitated it. The Author approaches the logic of the theory of rational choice as well as examines the prospects of using the particular models of game theory as a tool of analyzing the abovementioned interactions of two states the structural and comparative power of which is notably unequal. After analyzing the impact of imperfect information as well as the mistrust in the rationality of the partners of the game, the Author comes to conclusion that the abovementioned factors may be intentionally encouraged to bind the rationality of the adversary.
Independence and liberty of cyberspace enabled inception of new kind mass media. Internet based news organization no longer needed to obey national laws and acknowledge states' superiority in international political communication. News organizations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc., have emerged as mighty actors in the international communicative activities. They are being driven by self-interests, which not necessary conform sovereign states' interests. The development of new kind mass media are not being determined by national laws or other offline rules. This study determined the role of self-ruling mass media in the international political communication. Also, this work showed that emergence of new kind mass media have caused substantial decline of sovereign states' power in international political communication.
Independence and liberty of cyberspace enabled inception of new kind mass media. Internet based news organization no longer needed to obey national laws and acknowledge states' superiority in international political communication. News organizations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc., have emerged as mighty actors in the international communicative activities. They are being driven by self-interests, which not necessary conform sovereign states' interests. The development of new kind mass media are not being determined by national laws or other offline rules. This study determined the role of self-ruling mass media in the international political communication. Also, this work showed that emergence of new kind mass media have caused substantial decline of sovereign states' power in international political communication.
Independence and liberty of cyberspace enabled inception of new kind mass media. Internet based news organization no longer needed to obey national laws and acknowledge states' superiority in international political communication. News organizations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikileaks, etc., have emerged as mighty actors in the international communicative activities. They are being driven by self-interests, which not necessary conform sovereign states' interests. The development of new kind mass media are not being determined by national laws or other offline rules. This study determined the role of self-ruling mass media in the international political communication. Also, this work showed that emergence of new kind mass media have caused substantial decline of sovereign states' power in international political communication.
The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].
The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].
The article presents the theoretical framework that could be used in analyzing the opposition of state sovereignty and human rights in international relations. As the methodological tool is chosen the English School of international relations, which is known as a via media, a third way between realism and liberalism. The English School is generally divided into two major camps – pluralism and solidarism, distinguishable by their positions on the role of values in international society. The pluralistic variant of English School is closer to realism, and the solidarist variant – to liberalism. The main concept which represents the English School is the international society. According to the definition by H. Bull and A. Watson, international society is a "group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements". Pluralists and solidarists perceive the concept of international society differently. The pluralist concept of international society refers to the positivist tradition of international law. According to that tradition, international law is the law between states only and exclusively. The statement that only sovereign states can become members of the international society is of fundamental importance in the pluralist approach. The scope of pluralist international society is fairly minimal, centered on shared concerns about international order under anarchy, and thus largely confined to agreement about sovereignty, diplomacy, and non-intervention.[.].
Because of the common shared values, Europe and United States today are the closest partners and external nucleus of its relations is – the transatlantic partnership which is one of the most important partnerships in the world. In this Master thesis the U.S. and European security relations after 2009 will be analyzed, when the new President and Administration came to the U.S. government. It is believed that this new phase in U.S. policy, resumption of European - U.S transatlantic relations and the European Union's security policy may have influenced European – U.S. relations after 2009. Because of the lack information and research on European – U.S. relations on security issue, it is important to carry out a more detailed analysis, clarifying the role of Europe in the rhetoric of U.S. officials and to find out what are the trends of European- U.S. relations in the field of security. The object of research is the European and U.S. security relations after 2009. The aim is to analyze and to assess the European and U.S. relations in security field after 2009. To achieve this, these following objectives will be implemented: to introduce international relations theory of realism, the key concepts and types of realism, distinguishing the classical realism; to analyze the role of Europe, clarifying European power resources and U.S. interests towards Europe; to analyze the factor of Europe in the official U.S. rhetoric after 2009, highlighting the role of Europe as an international actor in international security; to carry out European and U.S. mutual interaction research, clarifying the peculiarities of relationship between the two international actors in security after 2009, identifying the intensity of relationship, evaluations, and explaining the reasons of such kind of relationship. Master defended propositions/hypotheses are: the role of Europe, as an international actor in security affairs and in the United States Foreign policy is significant; European and U.S. relationship in security domain is close, intense and positively evaluated. With a major economic and military power resources Europe is recognized as significant international player. Because of the European geopolitical spread, growing impact on neighboring regions and the power resources, the U.S. seeks a close cooperation with Europe. After analyzing U.S. rhetoric towards European it became clear that Europe is considered to be the most important partner in the fight against the security problems and to maintain peace in the world. On the other hand, the results of the Event data set method showed that the European and U.S. security relationship is controversial.
Because of the common shared values, Europe and United States today are the closest partners and external nucleus of its relations is – the transatlantic partnership which is one of the most important partnerships in the world. In this Master thesis the U.S. and European security relations after 2009 will be analyzed, when the new President and Administration came to the U.S. government. It is believed that this new phase in U.S. policy, resumption of European - U.S transatlantic relations and the European Union's security policy may have influenced European – U.S. relations after 2009. Because of the lack information and research on European – U.S. relations on security issue, it is important to carry out a more detailed analysis, clarifying the role of Europe in the rhetoric of U.S. officials and to find out what are the trends of European- U.S. relations in the field of security. The object of research is the European and U.S. security relations after 2009. The aim is to analyze and to assess the European and U.S. relations in security field after 2009. To achieve this, these following objectives will be implemented: to introduce international relations theory of realism, the key concepts and types of realism, distinguishing the classical realism; to analyze the role of Europe, clarifying European power resources and U.S. interests towards Europe; to analyze the factor of Europe in the official U.S. rhetoric after 2009, highlighting the role of Europe as an international actor in international security; to carry out European and U.S. mutual interaction research, clarifying the peculiarities of relationship between the two international actors in security after 2009, identifying the intensity of relationship, evaluations, and explaining the reasons of such kind of relationship. Master defended propositions/hypotheses are: the role of Europe, as an international actor in security affairs and in the United States Foreign policy is significant; European and U.S. relationship in security domain is close, intense and positively evaluated. With a major economic and military power resources Europe is recognized as significant international player. Because of the European geopolitical spread, growing impact on neighboring regions and the power resources, the U.S. seeks a close cooperation with Europe. After analyzing U.S. rhetoric towards European it became clear that Europe is considered to be the most important partner in the fight against the security problems and to maintain peace in the world. On the other hand, the results of the Event data set method showed that the European and U.S. security relationship is controversial.
Because of the common shared values, Europe and United States today are the closest partners and external nucleus of its relations is – the transatlantic partnership which is one of the most important partnerships in the world. In this Master thesis the U.S. and European security relations after 2009 will be analyzed, when the new President and Administration came to the U.S. government. It is believed that this new phase in U.S. policy, resumption of European - U.S transatlantic relations and the European Union's security policy may have influenced European – U.S. relations after 2009. Because of the lack information and research on European – U.S. relations on security issue, it is important to carry out a more detailed analysis, clarifying the role of Europe in the rhetoric of U.S. officials and to find out what are the trends of European- U.S. relations in the field of security. The object of research is the European and U.S. security relations after 2009. The aim is to analyze and to assess the European and U.S. relations in security field after 2009. To achieve this, these following objectives will be implemented: to introduce international relations theory of realism, the key concepts and types of realism, distinguishing the classical realism; to analyze the role of Europe, clarifying European power resources and U.S. interests towards Europe; to analyze the factor of Europe in the official U.S. rhetoric after 2009, highlighting the role of Europe as an international actor in international security; to carry out European and U.S. mutual interaction research, clarifying the peculiarities of relationship between the two international actors in security after 2009, identifying the intensity of relationship, evaluations, and explaining the reasons of such kind of relationship. Master defended propositions/hypotheses are: the role of Europe, as an international actor in security affairs and in the United States Foreign policy is significant; European and U.S. relationship in security domain is close, intense and positively evaluated. With a major economic and military power resources Europe is recognized as significant international player. Because of the European geopolitical spread, growing impact on neighboring regions and the power resources, the U.S. seeks a close cooperation with Europe. After analyzing U.S. rhetoric towards European it became clear that Europe is considered to be the most important partner in the fight against the security problems and to maintain peace in the world. On the other hand, the results of the Event data set method showed that the European and U.S. security relationship is controversial.
Compassion in International Relations: The Case Study of Armenian Genocide Recognition Not all decisions in international politics can be explained by power and interest, as realists would suggest. Constructivists claim identity plays an important role for interaction of countries and nations. Some nations decide to choose the most painful part of their history and are building their special identity – victim identity. In first part of this paper the concept of identity, especially victim identity, is analyzed. Then two competing identities are analyzed – Armenian victim identity and Turkish "denial identity". Reasons for selection of these particular identities, ways of promotion and making it priority of foreign policy agenda are discussed in second and third parts of this paper. Special identity can generate soft power in international politics only in case if it is recognized by other countries. Therefore, Armenia listed recognition of the Armenian Genocide in top priorities list of Foreign Policy. Although right after becoming the independent country, first Armenian President was trying to be "rational" and was refusing claims of recognition by Turkey in order to assure good relationship, victimhood was deep in identity of Armenian society and diaspora, therefore, such foreign policy was not widely accepted. So later Armenian policy makers were making sure not to repeat this mistake and were giving to recignition of genocide a very special place in Armenian Foreign Policy. State coordinated campaigns and civic initiatives have increased public awareness about the issue, and so far, 28 countries recognized Armenian genocide. By recognizing Armenian identity, they denied competing Turkish identity (claiming not being responsible for Armenian genocide), which is being promoted with the same amount of efforts. This paper tries to find an answer: what kind of power leads the decision of other countries choosing to support small, not strategically important country and take risk to anger much powerful actor of international affairs? In case of Germany, it had even more to lose: good bilateral relationship with Turkey and, even more important, strategically important alley in high peak of refugee crisis in Europe. But regardless that, German Bundestag nearly unanimously voted for recognition of Armenian genocide in June 2016. In most cases it is difficult to evaluate direct effect of soft power and prove its effect to implementation of foreign policy goals, therefore it is the most criticised aspect of soft power theory. In this case we can see how the decision by Armenia to choose victim identity and constantly promote it is being converted into soft power and push into political agenda of other country activities that are important and useful for Armenian Foreign Policy goals. Analysis of rhetoric of dedicated political activist Erika Steinbach, strategical documents and arguments of Bundestag members before final vote that led to recognition of Armenian genocide reveals that one of the leading arguments for decision was compassion. Members of Bundestag stressed the importance of recognition as a way to express their compassion to grievance of Armenian people, to share responsibility for mediation of bilateral relationship, and to share the burden of guilt – for not preventing Armenian genocide as former ally of Ottoman Empire. Armenian themselves and many human right advocates all around the world stress the importance of recognition of genocide in order to prevent it in the future. They say would be needed to disclose all the cruelty of humanity in the past in order to ensure any early warning sign would be met with highest concern and world society wouldn't observing just observing. And, finally, would fulfil the promise humanity gave after the Holocaust, most recognized genocide off all times, –– newer again.
