International Order as a Category of International Studies: Theoretical Foundations

Q1 Arts and Humanities
A. Fenenko
{"title":"International Order as a Category of International Studies: Theoretical Foundations","authors":"A. Fenenko","doi":"10.17994/it.2023.21.1.72.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is devoted to the study of world order in modern political theory. The author shows that modern Anglo-American and Russian political science share common problems related to its study. First, modern internationalists often unjustifiably take the modern world order out of the context of historical development, contrasting it with the entire world history. Second, modern theories of world order are characterized by a high degree of normativity: political processes are assessed from moral and ethical or openly ideological (usually liberal) positions. Third, researchers today often exaggerate the originality, or uniqueness, of the modern world order, although many of its problems existed in the past. Also, in modern political literature the concepts of \"order\" and \"system\" are often confused. Moreover, the mechanism of change of world orders, their qualitative difference from each other, even their number and names have not been revealed. In this regard, the author focuses on two interrelated tasks: 1) to define the relationship between the terms \"system\" and \"order of international relations\"; 2) to designate the systemic characteristics of world orders, which will make it possible to identify their number, the mechanism of their change and their qualitative difference. The article aims at clarifying the terminology on the subject of world orders and suggests considering them as completed political systems, which have covered their development cycle – from inception to disintegration. The basic concept of the order is that of balance of power between the great powers and the values and rules of interaction established on its basis. The world order emerges as the result of a total war and is terminated by a total war. Some limited wars regulate relations within the world order. The two types of world orders, namely, the hegemonic order and the balance of power order, acted as two equal types of order. Their disintegration is due to objective reasons, namely, the change in the balance of power and degradation of legal norms, which leads to the emergence of extra-systemic revisionists. The author believes that today’s Yalta-Potsdam order is likely to follow the entire cycle of the development of its predecessors.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2023.21.1.72.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is devoted to the study of world order in modern political theory. The author shows that modern Anglo-American and Russian political science share common problems related to its study. First, modern internationalists often unjustifiably take the modern world order out of the context of historical development, contrasting it with the entire world history. Second, modern theories of world order are characterized by a high degree of normativity: political processes are assessed from moral and ethical or openly ideological (usually liberal) positions. Third, researchers today often exaggerate the originality, or uniqueness, of the modern world order, although many of its problems existed in the past. Also, in modern political literature the concepts of "order" and "system" are often confused. Moreover, the mechanism of change of world orders, their qualitative difference from each other, even their number and names have not been revealed. In this regard, the author focuses on two interrelated tasks: 1) to define the relationship between the terms "system" and "order of international relations"; 2) to designate the systemic characteristics of world orders, which will make it possible to identify their number, the mechanism of their change and their qualitative difference. The article aims at clarifying the terminology on the subject of world orders and suggests considering them as completed political systems, which have covered their development cycle – from inception to disintegration. The basic concept of the order is that of balance of power between the great powers and the values and rules of interaction established on its basis. The world order emerges as the result of a total war and is terminated by a total war. Some limited wars regulate relations within the world order. The two types of world orders, namely, the hegemonic order and the balance of power order, acted as two equal types of order. Their disintegration is due to objective reasons, namely, the change in the balance of power and degradation of legal norms, which leads to the emergence of extra-systemic revisionists. The author believes that today’s Yalta-Potsdam order is likely to follow the entire cycle of the development of its predecessors.
国际秩序作为国际研究的一个范畴:理论基础
本文致力于研究现代政治理论中的世界秩序。本文认为,现代英美和俄罗斯的政治学研究存在着共同的问题。首先,现代国际主义者经常不合理地将现代世界秩序从历史发展的背景中剥离出来,将其与整个世界历史进行对比。其次,现代世界秩序理论的特点是高度的规范性:政治进程是从道德和伦理或公开的意识形态(通常是自由主义)立场来评估的。第三,今天的研究人员经常夸大现代世界秩序的原创性或独特性,尽管它的许多问题在过去就存在。此外,在现代政治文学中,“秩序”和“制度”的概念经常被混淆。此外,世界秩序的变化机制,它们之间的质的区别,甚至它们的数量和名称都没有被揭示出来。在这方面,笔者着重于两个相互关联的任务:1)界定“制度”与“国际关系秩序”的关系;2)指明世界秩序的系统特征,从而有可能识别世界秩序的数量、变化机制和质的差异。这篇文章的目的是澄清关于世界秩序的术语,并建议将它们视为已完成的政治制度,这些制度涵盖了其从开始到解体的发展周期。国际秩序的基本概念是大国之间的力量平衡,以及在此基础上建立的相互作用的价值观和规则。世界秩序是全面战争的结果,也是全面战争的终结。一些有限的战争调节着世界秩序内部的关系。霸权秩序和均势秩序这两种世界秩序是两种平等的秩序。它们的解体是由于客观原因,即权力平衡的变化和法律规范的退化,导致了制度外修正主义者的出现。作者认为,今天的雅尔塔-波茨坦秩序很可能遵循其前辈的整个发展周期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy
Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊介绍: “International Trends” (“Mezhdunarodnye protsessy”) was established in 2002 as the first Russian TIR journal. As of the early 2010s, it holds a strong position among the top three Russian thematic academic journals (according to the Russian Science Citation Index). The Journal’s key mission is a theoretical comprehension of the world as a whole, of international tendencies and the planetary political environment, and of the world-integrity our country finds herself in and develops with.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信