home Vitamins and dietary supplements Formation of a new system of international relations in Europe. Absolutism, religious wars and the new system of international relations in Europe

Formation of a new system of international relations in Europe. Absolutism, religious wars and the new system of international relations in Europe

1. What is the essence of absolutism?

Under absolutism, all power (legislative, executive and judicial) is in the hands of the monarch. However, it differs from eastern despotism. Firstly, the absolute monarch most often was not also the head of the church. Secondly, despite his absolute power, the monarch had to take into account certain rights of classes (for example, the nobility), as well as other restrictions that were formally confirmed by documents on behalf of the monarch himself (for example, in France, the king’s special ordinances confirmed many norms of local law).

2. What are the reasons for the transition of European countries to absolutism? What prerequisites for strengthening central power have developed in Western European countries?

Reasons and prerequisites:

In the conditions of religious wars, the church could no longer be a factor of stability; only the central government could become such, especially since it was often required to unite adherents of different faiths;

The increased effectiveness of regular armies weakened the influence of the feudal militia, and therefore the local nobility;

Many layers of society that had already gained influence were interested in strengthening the central government (petty nobility, including junior branches of noble families, merchants and other financial elite);

The growth of colonial trade and the policies of mercantilism provided the monarchs with significant financial support;

The influx of precious metals and other valuables from the New World also financed the activities of certain monarchs.

3. Name the features of absolutism in England and France. Why did resistance to him take religious forms?

Peculiarities:

All real power was concentrated in the hands of government bodies completely controlled by the king (in England - the Privy Council and the Star Chamber, in France - the Great Royal Council);

The main opposition to absolutism was the large feudal nobility;

The bodies of class representation continued to meet, but no longer played the same role;

The kings did not want to resort to the help of class authorities, so they sought alternative means of replenishing the treasury, relied heavily on financial circles and generally pursued a policy of mercantilism;

During the formation of absolutism, there was persecution of the royal power against the large feudal nobility, many of whose representatives were subjected to executions, exile and other punishments with confiscation of property.

Resistance to absolutism took religious forms because the religious doctrine of the Middle Ages already contained ideological justification for the struggle against power. Even according to the teachings of F. Aquinas, a monarch who did not rule righteously was deprived of the right to the throne. Protestants included the same provision in their doctrine from their first speech against Charles V, using essentially a ready-made Catholic model.

4. Tell us about the essence of the Edict of Nantes. Did he ensure real equality for Catholics and Huguenots? What consequences did it have?

The Edict of Nantes in 1598 equalized the rights of Catholics and Protestants in France. He even left the latter a certain autonomy, including control over some fortresses. However, in conditions of absolutism, the main role is played by the policy of the monarch. The actions of subsequent rulers were aimed at actually revising the provisions of the edict until its complete abolition in 1685.

5. List the contradictions European politics beginning of the 17th century Which ones mattered most?

Controversies:

The struggle against Habsburg hegemony in Europe;

Confessional conflict in Europe.

The religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants was of greatest importance. Orthodox Russia participated as a third force in this contradiction, but its actions were limited to the neighboring Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Sweden. By this point, European countries had abandoned the idea of a broad coalition against the threat Ottoman Empire with the involvement of Russia as an ally (this idea was periodically returned to later), therefore this knot of conflicts remained on the periphery.

The main one remained the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, because it included many contradictions back in the 16th century, and also continued to divide not only states, but the subjects of one monarch (for example, the Holy Roman Emperor of the German nation), and served as the reason for the disobedience of subjects to the monarch.

6. Name the main stages of the Thirty Years' War. What were the results of the Thirty Years' War?

Bohemian-Palatinate period (1618-1624);

Danish period (1625-1629);

Swedish period (1630-1635);

Franco-Swedish period (1635-1648).

The second part of the question is the same as the next question.

7. What were the results of the Thirty Years' War?

Confessional affiliation has almost ceased to be a factor in European politics;

Along with dynastic interests, economics began to play a greater role than before in European politics;

The principle of state sovereignty was finally established, also in religious matters;

A new system has emerged international relations– Westphalian;

The Habsburgs retained most of their lands, but their position in Europe weakened;

France received a number of lands along the Rhine;

Sweden received lands on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea;

Protestantism in the Czech Republic was completely destroyed, but Germany continued to be divided along religious lines;

The lands of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, where most of the fighting took place, were completely devastated by the war, and the empire for a long time ceased to play an important role in the economy, politics, etc.

8. What were the features of the Westphalian system of international relations? Are its principles still relevant today?

The Westphalian peace system was aimed at ending the decades-long conflict. Many of its mechanisms were aimed at minimizing religious conflicts. Today in a secular society they are not relevant. But some principles enshrined then are still in effect, for example, the sovereignty of the government of an independent state.

A new system of international relations began at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations. However, during this period, more fundamental and qualitative systemic transformations took place: along with the Soviet Union, not only the confrontational system of international relations of the Cold War period and the Yalta-Potsdam world order ceased to exist, but the much older system of the Peace of Westphalia and its principles were undermined.

However, throughout the last decade of the twentieth century, there were active discussions in world science about what the new configuration of the world would be in the spirit of Westphalia. The dispute erupted between two main concepts of world order: the concepts of unipolarity and multipolarity.

Naturally, in light of the just-ended Cold War, the first conclusion to be drawn was a unipolar world order, supported by the only remaining superpower - the United States of America. Meanwhile, in reality everything turned out to be not so simple. In particular, as some researchers and politicians point out (for example, E.M. Primakov, R. Haas, etc.), with the end of the bipolar world, the very phenomenon of superpower disappeared from the world economic and geopolitical foreground in its traditional understanding: “During the Cold War, war," as long as there were two systems, there were two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States. Today there are no superpowers at all: the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, but the United States, although it has exceptional political influence and is the most powerful state in the world militarily and economically, has lost such status” [Primakov E.M. A world without superpowers [Electronic resource] // Russia in global politics. October 2003 – URL: http://www.globalaffairs.ru/articles/2242.html]. As a result, the role of the United States was declared not as the only one, but as one of several pillars of the new world order.

The American idea was being challenged. The main opponents of the US monopoly in the world are United Europe, the increasingly powerful China, Russia, India and Brazil. For example, China, followed by Russia, adopted the concept of a multipolar world in the 21st century as their official foreign policy doctrine. A kind of struggle has unfolded against the threat of unipolarity, for maintaining a multipolar balance of power as the main condition for stability in the world. In addition, it is also obvious that in the years since the liquidation of the USSR, the United States has actually been unable, despite its desire for world leadership, to establish itself in this role. Moreover, they had to experience the bitterness of failure; they got stuck in places where there seemed to be no problems (especially in the absence of a second superpower): in Somalia, Cuba, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Thus, the United States at the turn of the century was unable to stabilize the situation in the world.

While there was debate in scientific circles about the structure of the new system of international relations, a number of events that occurred at the turn of the century actually dotted the i’s themselves.

Several stages can be distinguished:

1. 1991 – 2000 – this stage can be defined as a period of crisis throughout international system and the period of crisis in Russia. At this time, world politics was categorically dominated by the idea of unipolarity led by the United States, and Russia was perceived as a “former superpower”, as a “losing side” in the Cold War, some researchers even write about the possible collapse of the Russian Federation in the near future (for example, Z. Brzezinski ). As a result, during this period there was a certain dictate regarding the actions of the Russian Federation from the world community.

This was largely due to the fact that the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in the early 90s of the twentieth century had a clear “pro-American vector.” Other trends foreign policy appeared approximately after 1996, thanks to the replacement of the Westerner A. Kozyrev as Minister of Foreign Affairs by the statist E. Primakov. The difference in the positions of these figures has led to not only a change in the vector of Russian policy - it is becoming more independent, but many analysts are talking about transforming the model of Russian foreign policy. Changes introduced by E.M. Primakov, may well be called a consistent “Primakov Doctrine”. “Its essence: to interact with the main world actors, without rigidly siding with anyone.” According to the Russian researcher A. Pushkov, “this is a “third way” that allows one to avoid the extremes of the “Kozyrev doctrine” (“the position of America’s junior partner who agrees to everything or almost everything”) and the nationalist doctrine (“to distance oneself from Europe, the USA and Western institutions - NATO, the IMF, the World Bank"), try to turn into an independent center of gravity for all those who do not have good relations with the West, from the Bosnian Serbs to the Iranians."

After E. Primakov’s resignation from the post of Prime Minister in 1999, the geostrategy he defined was basically continued - in fact, there was no other alternative to it and it met Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. Thus, Russia finally managed to formulate its own geostrategy, which is conceptually well founded and quite practical. It is quite natural that the West did not accept it, since it was ambitious in nature: Russia still intends to play the role of a world power and is not going to agree to a decrease in its global status.

2. 2000-2008 – the beginning of the second stage was undoubtedly marked to a greater extent by the events of September 11, 2001, as a result of which the idea of unipolarity actually collapses in the world. In US political and scientific circles, they are gradually beginning to talk about a departure from hegemonic policies and the need to establish US global leadership, supported by its closest allies from the developed world.

In addition, at the beginning of the 21st century, there is a change of political leaders in almost all leading countries. In Russia, a new president, V. Putin, comes to power and the situation begins to change. Putin finally affirms the idea of a multipolar world as the basic one in Russia's foreign policy strategy. In such a multipolar structure, Russia claims to be one of the main players, along with China, France, Germany, Brazil and India. However, the United States does not want to give up its leadership. As a result, a real geopolitical war is playing out, and the main battles are playing out in the post-Soviet space (for example, “color revolutions”, gas conflicts, the problem of NATO expansion to a number of countries in the post-Soviet space, etc.).

Some researchers define the second stage as “post-American”: “We live in the post-American period of world history. This is actually a multipolar world, based on 8 - 10 pillars. They are not equally strong, but have enough autonomy. These are the USA, Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, but also Iran and South America, where Brazil plays a leading role. South Africa on the African continent and other pillars are centers of power.” However, this is not a “world after the USA” and especially without the USA. This is a world where, due to the rise of other global “power centers” and their increasing influence, the relative importance of America’s role has been diminishing, as has been the case in global economics and trade over the past decades. A real “global political awakening” is taking place, as Z. Brzezinski writes in his latest book. This “global awakening” is determined by such multidirectional forces as economic success, national dignity, increasing levels of education, information “weapons,” and the historical memory of peoples. This, in particular, is where the rejection of the American version of world history arises.

3. 2008 - present - the third stage, first of all, was marked by the coming to power in Russia of a new president - D.A. Medvedev, and then the election of V.V. Putin to the previous presidential post. In general, the foreign policy of the early 21st century was continued.

In addition, the events in Georgia in August 2008 played a key role at this stage: firstly, the war in Georgia became evidence that the “transitional” period of transformation of the international system had ended; secondly, there was a final balance of power at the interstate level: it became obvious that the new system has completely different foundations and Russia will be able to play a key role here by developing some kind of global concept based on the idea of multipolarity.

“After 2008, Russia moved to a position of consistent criticism of the global activities of the United States, defending the prerogatives of the UN, the inviolability of sovereignty and the need to strengthen the regulatory framework in the security sphere. The United States, on the contrary, shows disdain for the UN, promoting the “interception” of a number of its functions by other organizations – NATO, first of all. American politicians are putting forward the idea of creating new international organizations on political and ideological principles - based on the conformity of their future members with democratic ideals. American diplomacy stimulates anti-Russian tendencies in the politics of the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and is trying to create regional associations in the CIS without the participation of Russia,” writes Russian researcher T. Shakleina.

Russia, together with the United States, is trying to form some kind of adequate model of Russian-American interaction “in the context of weakening overall governance of the world system.” The previously existing model was adapted to take into account the interests of the United States, since Russia for a long time was busy restoring own strength and largely depended on relations with the United States.

Today, many people accuse Russia of being ambitious and intending to compete with the United States. American researcher A. Cohen writes: “...Russia has noticeably tightened its international policy and, in achieving its goals, increasingly relies on force rather than on international law… Moscow has stepped up its anti-American policies and rhetoric and is prepared to challenge US interests wherever and whenever possible, including in the Far North.”

Similar statements form the current context of statements about Russia’s participation in world politics. The desire of the Russian leadership to limit the dictates of the United States in all international affairs is obvious, but thanks to this, there is an increase in the competitiveness of the international environment. However, “reducing the intensity of contradictions is possible if all countries, not just Russia, realize the importance of mutually beneficial cooperation and mutual concessions.” It is necessary to develop a new global paradigm for the further development of the world community, based on the idea of multi-vector and polycentricity.

The international political development of Europe over the past two decades has demonstrated very stable dynamics, both intraregional and of the system of international relations as a whole. Moreover, European development leads to an adjustment of the very structure of the modern world system.
The dynamics of European political and economic processes due to a number of circumstances, which primarily include the maximum maturity of the European system and most of its regional and subregional components, is not momentary, but strategic in nature.
The interconnected logic of various trends in European development can be clearly seen from the very beginning of the 1990s, where the Paris Charter for new Europe.
The stage of European development that began two decades ago organically accumulated changes that took place in several important dimensions of the continental structure. The evolution of these dimensions, ultimately leading to the overcoming of their original characteristics, represents the essence of the dynamics of the European system.
The Yalta-Potsdam, or historical and legal, dimension. Exactly at geographical areas and functional areas of the greatest localization of decisions in Yalta and Potsdam over the past twenty years, the most significant changes. The breakdown of “border” agreements as a result of the unification of Germany, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia; the erosion of the long-decorative phenomenon of European neutrality associated with the early post-war period; the beginning of convergence, and then the self-liquidation of one of the two socio-economic systems - all this led to the marginalization of the original Yalta-Potsdam dimension by the beginning of the 1990s.
Let us make a reservation that the Yalta-Potsdam dimension introduced at least three elements into the treasury of European politics that remain to this day. Often they are understood as those values that Russia supposedly does not share, although surprisingly it took an active part in their formation.
The first is the inevitability of punishment of the military aggressor, including through positive collusion of the most powerful participants in the system, and the rejection of large-scale military actions in Europe. That is why the bombing of Belgrade or the events of 2008 in Transcaucasia caused such a serious resonance.
Secondly, Yalta gave birth to Helsinki and the pan-European process, one of key elements which was the voluntary consent of the former victors, who had reached a dead end in bipolar confrontation, to democratize the system of multilateral relations in Europe. Democracy, as far as possible, is beyond nation state became characteristic feature European system. Many European institutions in form, and often in essence, they are representative in nature.
Third, the international legal doctrine and historical and political logic of the Yalta-Potsdam regulations became guarantors of stability even for those borders that they did not directly affect. This concerns, first of all, state-territorial demarcation in the post-Soviet space, the boundaries between former proto-sovereign entities that were part of the Soviet state.
The next background dimension at the time of the adoption of the Charter of Paris existed as one of the successful paradigms, but had a significantly greater variability of competing alternatives. It's about about Western European (at that time) integration, which later became one of the central and even dominant directions of continental development. Compared to today, the then twelve-nation European Communities look like a geopolitical dwarf.
At the same time, it was the Communities that were the very phenomenon that emphasized the special identity of the European system in world economic relations. It was the existence of the EU that made possible the emergence of the phenomenon of centro-power relations in the Western world and pluralistic multipolarity in the post-confrontational world.
Over the past two decades, political ambitions European Union have gone beyond their original geographical and conceptual limits, thanks both to their own efforts and to a supportive international context.
The third dimension of the European situation is related to US policy in Europe and Euro-Atlantic relations, the core element of which was, and partly remains, NATO. The maturity of the European system, combined with more or less regular manifestations of opposition from European partner-competitors; the elimination of the European theater as the main arena of potential military confrontation; involvement in new geographical and functional spheres of world politics and economics - all this reduced the role of the United States on the continent. This trend strengthened in subsequent years. Deviations from it in the form of ad hoc intervention in European affairs (attempts to Americanize the elites of small post-socialist countries, Kosovo, “color revolutions”, missile defense) cannot be underestimated. However, they cannot be compared with the level of extremely close and attentive US supervision over European politics that was characteristic of several post-war European decades. Without equating the US and NATO, it can be stated that, to a large extent, it was precisely because of changes in US policy that the loss of NATO’s clear identity and the permanent search for the Alliance’s place in the modern world became so obvious.
Institutional landscape modern Europe, especially “big” Europe, which includes part of geographical Asia, is extremely mosaic, absorbing multidirectional trends, as well as giving rise to many proposals for their systematization. One of these proposals was the well-known Russian initiative on a new European security architecture.
In the series of European security institutions, the OSCE still nominally occupies first place. This is partly a tribute to tradition, and partly the result of the intensification of this direction, the manifestation of which was primarily the Corfu process and the summit in Astana. The OSCE faces two fundamental tasks. The first is internal consolidation. The second is a significant update of the content of traditional “baskets”. Thus, if the humanitarian “basket” demonstrates enviable dynamics, then the problems that fall into the first and second “baskets” run up against the procedural and legal ineffectiveness of the OSCE and often the lack of political will of the leading players in the European system.
At the same time, issues such as conflict management, peacebuilding, and the problems of the emergence of new state or quasi-state entities in the post-Soviet space are associated with these areas.
The third “basket” largely contains potential related to issues of economic security and its energy segment. In other words, the OSCE, from an organization with de facto reduced functions, can, if desired, turn into a full-fledged dialogue mechanism on a wide range of subjects.
Regardless of subjective desires, it is the OSCE that remains the structure of the most complete European participation.
The Atlantic dimension of European politics, symbolized by NATO, has in the last two years demonstrated increasing pragmatism and a tendency towards self-criticism regarding extensive expansion, including into the “new Eastern Europe”. This was confirmed by the adoption of the new strategic concept of the Alliance and the Russia-NATO summit in Lisbon.
In the meantime, the bid for a de facto expansion of NATO's responsibility faces an extremely difficult situation in Afghanistan and throughout the political area at the junction of Central and South Asia. NATO's activity in other segments of the “greater” Middle East is limited by the difference in approaches and real interests of the Alliance member countries. Complexes and prejudices that have accumulated over decades hinder the Alliance’s interaction both with Russia and with other significant regional actors, including institutional ones - the SCO, the CSTO.
Improving the general political climate so far has little added value in the practical dimension of relations between Russia and the Alliance. Obvious, but constantly postponed “for later” topics here are the issues of the European segment of missile defense, conventional weapons and armed forces, a coordinated understanding of military-strategic threats, legal registration of mutual interests of the Alliance and post-Soviet security structures.
The logic of the development of the European Union and the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty position the EU in a completely different way in the new security architecture. Already, EU activities almost completely fill the “soft security” niche. The EU’s activity provokes discussions about security in the “common neighborhood”/“Eastern Partnership” space and the nature of relations with Russia.
It is in relations with the European Union that Russia and its neighbors in the CIS may be able to find a consensus on energy aspects of security, on the movement of citizens, and issues related to the reliability and at the same time transparency of borders will be resolved. Russia's accession to the WTO has actually brought our country closer to the scenario of economic functioning of the European Union.
Most EU states do not feel the need to abandon a system of stability and security that relies exclusively on the growing capabilities of the European Union in the field of foreign policy and defense and on the traditional resources of NATO. However, we must remember that modern “greater” Europe is wider than the western part of the continent. If countries that, for one reason or another, are not associated with the EU and NATO are dissatisfied with the parameters of the current situation, it is necessary to look for options for mutual adaptation of interests and institutions.
The European security system, which is not comprehensive, becomes a palliative, which tends to provoke political tension when trying to solve real problems with its help both in its own geographical area and in neighboring regions - in the Greater Middle East or South Asia.
It is in this regard that Europeans are faced with the task of collecting, creating an “intermodal” scheme of institutions for the large European space. This scheme should include various regional and subregional structures (from the “classical” European and Euro-Atlantic - EU, CE, NATO to the “big” CIS, EurAsEC/Customs Union, CSTO) with the necessary support for niche structures like the BSEC, CBSS, long-term contact mechanisms.
Obviously, one can only dream of complete institutional harmony, but some kind of revision and coordination of actions, at a minimum, can lead to a reduction in cross-waste of time, diplomatic and material resources.
The understanding of European stability and security has traditionally included issues of military security, control over arms and armed forces. Many people think that this is a problem of yesterday. But an unresolved problem has a chance to “shoot” at the most inopportune moment. This is exactly the situation with the CFE Treaty. It is paradoxical, but on the continent, which is still the most militarized, and at the level of the highest technological standards, there have been no modern rules for regulating military activities for more than a decade.
Additional elements of stability of the European system are various stable, both bilateral and multilateral configurations of interstate relations. These include the traditional axes: Moscow-Paris, Moscow-Berlin, Moscow-Rome. Apparently, the Moscow-Warsaw dialogue channel was starting to work. Traditional are the Franco-German tandem and the slightly less stable Franco-British tandem, which have given rise to a significant number of initiatives in the field European integration, EU foreign policy and security. The Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary), which once had its own integration prospects, has become a mechanism for coordinating the interests of the CEE countries, and the Weimar Triangle (Poland, Germany, France) helps coordinate the positions of the Franco-German motor of Europe with largest country Of Eastern Europe.

Lecture 4. Systems of international relations within IN Estphalian model: " E European Concert" and the interwar system

1. "E" European Concert" as a system of international relations

In the XVII - XVIII centuries A common practice among the absolutist states of Europe was a kind of interstate “mergers and acquisitions” - redistribution of territories to resolve conflicts and maintain a changing balance of power. The natural state of relations between states was indeed a “war of all against all,” where each tried to improve its position at the expense of others . At the same time, ambitious goals often did not correspond to real resources: wars were fought with the help of expensive mercenary professional armies, as a result, victory often depended on the amount of money in the treasury and the ability to collect taxes. The model of behavior for states at that time was not maintaining a balance of power, but endless revision of the existing order, desire for hegemony, those. superiority in influence.The situation changed after the Napoleonic Wars.

Congress of Vienna 1815 laid the foundation for a system of international relations called"European Concert"(another name is the Vienna System of International Relations). By "concert" we mean concerted action, because with in English term concerttranslated as “agreement, coherence, harmony in plans and actions.” If we apply a historical approach to the analysis of the “European Concert,” then we will be interested in facts about signed agreements and secret agreements, territorial redistributions, armed conflicts, but theoretical analysis also requires a study of the structure and environment of the system.

After the victory over Napoleon at the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), the main European powers discussed what the political map of Europe would look like in the future. Agreements signed in 1815 regulated territorial issues. The main violins played in the “European Concert” Russia, Austria(later— Austria-Hungary), UK, Prussia(later - Germany) And France. The Vienna system of international relations is called collective security system, because agreements between the great powers were aimed at maintaining the status quo and preventing conflicts in Europe.

The “Concert” of the Five Powers can be compared to the modern “Group seven ”, which is also not an international organization, but is a forum of great powers. An important criterion for membership in “ Seven ”, and in the “Five” - the development of the economy, and Russia’s lag behind its partners in terms of the level of industrial development is characteristic of both the 19th century and the modern stage.

To discuss emerging changes in the balance of power, the powers periodically met at international conferences : St. Petersburg (1825), Paris (1856), London (1871), Berlin (1878) and others. During the era of the Concert of Europe, the foundations of humanitarian law were laid, i.e. laws of war: in 1864 signs Geneva Convention on improving the lot of the sick and wounded in active armies , at the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 were conventions on the laws and customs of war were adopted. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, for the first time there was a unified system of seniority for diplomatic ranks was agreed upon , which streamlined diplomatic relations between states.

Within the framework of the “European Concert”, relations between states take on a new dimension with the advent of the firstinternational organizations. Already in 1815 was created Permanent Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, in the second half of the 19th century. Other organizations began to appear: International Telegraph Union(later renamed the International Telecommunication Union) - in 1865 G., Universal Postal Union- V 1875 G., International Committee for the Suppression of the Slave Trade- V 1890 G., The Hague Conference on International Private Property Law- V 1893 d. According to the Union of International Associations, in 1909 there were 37 governmental and 176 non-governmental organizations. At the same time regulation initially occurs in non-political areas that states were ready to entrust to international organizations . The first international organization in the political sphere emerged only after the First World War - the League of Nations.

Emergence and development since 1830s technology for construction railways, steamships and telegraph had no less influence on international relations than the Internet at the end of the 20th century. From the end of the 16th to the beginning of the 18th century. is happeningrevolution in military affairs, which creates the preconditions for European expansion into other regions of the world, and the development of transport made it possible to project military power over considerable distances and relatively quickly transfer troops to almost any geographical point . The superiority of the Europeans in military technology was so great that a detachment of several hundred people could defeat a native army of several tens of thousands of soldiers. At the end of the 19th century. Thanks to transport and military technologies, Europeans seize colonies in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America. If during the emergence of the Westphalian model conflicts occurred in Europe itself, then at the end of the 19th century. the arena of confrontation moved to the colonies.

It was during the period of rapid development of European empires at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. this direction of research is emerging , as geopolitics, which theoretically substantiates the need for territorial expansion. German geographer Friedrich Ratzel(1844-1904) formulated in 1897 concept of "living space", it was later used by the Nazis to justify expansion. At the beginning of the 20th century. The concepts of the British geopolitician are becoming famous Harold Mackinder(1861-1947), who believed that the political power of a state directly depends on its geographical location . The world seemed to geopoliticians to be a single space where there was a struggle between imperialist powers for dominance at sea and on land. The term " Big game"and put forward already in the 20th century. Zbigniew Brzezinski's concept of the “great chessboard“describe precisely the geopolitical confrontation between major powers, for which developing countries are just a platform for sorting out relations.

In the economic sphere at the end of the 17th century. politics is spreading protectionism — absolutist states protected their traders in order to levy more taxes on wars from increased incomes . Approximately until the middle of the 19th century. states tried to control industrial production and development of technologies, keeping them within national borders . For example, before the creationThe International Telegraph Union, which made it possible to establish uniform rules for regulating this area, duties were levied on telegrams at the border, and the text itself was transmitted orally across the border by customs officers, which, of course, led to significant distortions.

Significant growth interstate commerce and a decrease in the level of protectionism occurs in the second half of the 19th century, When states introduce most favored nation treatment . Industrialization, the development of transport, and colonial conquests contributed to the development of the export of raw materials from the colonies, which in turn purchased industrial goods from the metropolises. However, unlike the period after the Second World War, during the Concert of Europe era, an international trade regime did not yet exist.

The development of trade exchanges was facilitated by the establishment in 1878 gold standard which fixed the rates of major currencies in gold , Great Britain played a central role in this system. The emergence of centralized absolutist states leads to the emergence of common state currencies. By the 16th century in Europe is developingfinancial order as organized system credit relations: states needed loans to finance wars, the development of trade created a demand for banking services , which made it possible to avoid the risks associated with transporting money across borders. In the second half of the 19th century. foreign investments and loans are growing . Industrialized European countries accumulated surplus savings, which were invested in foreign, usually infrastructure, high-return projects in developing countries and colonies. Developing countries, on the contrary, did not have sufficient government savings and therefore willingly took out loans for industrial development.

At the end of the 19th century. the first majormultinational corporations, who operated in various countries , made foreign investments, but were mainly resource-oriented. Their predecessors are usually considered to be the East India Companies , through which trade was carried out between Europe and Asia. Such companies had significant power: they had their own currencies and even their own private armies of thousands. . However, these companies were engaged in trade, not production. TO end of the 19th century V. transcontinental trading companies disappeared, and their functions were taken over by the governments of the metropolises, which by that time had strengthened their state power.

They played an important role in the era of the Concert of Europe migration processes. In the second half of the 19th century. a large-scale wave of migration from Europe to the American continent begins: according to various sources, Europe was left before the First World War about 50 million migrants. In many ways, the reason for migration was industrialization, which left rural residents without work, and they moved to those states where there was just not enough labor. Migration allowed Europe to get rid of the unemployed and low-income groups of the population who could organize social unrest and revolution. Generally 19th century migration occurred from North to South (from developed countries to developing ones ), while currently the opposite trend is observed.

In general, the “Concert of Europe” system was considered quite stable due, first of all, to the coordinated regulation of international processes and relations between the great powers XIX century

The reason for the agreement of the great powers is the homogeneity of their political systems and forms of state : they were all monarchies and empires . Fearing revolutions like the Great French, monarchies agreed on collective action to suppress possible revolutionary movements.

In the 19th century there is a confrontation between two forms government system and board — dynastic monarchies and republican democracies. Moreover, the vector of development of world political processes was not initially obvious.

IN first half of the 19th century V. the first ones begin to appeardemocratic states. IN Subsequently, democratization processes occurred in waves, as a result of which this phenomenon was called “waves of democratization” - this concept was proposed by the famous American political scientist Samuel Huntington.

Wave of democratizationis a group of transitions from non-democratic regimes to democratic ones, occurring in a certain period of time, the number of which significantly exceeds the number of transitions in the opposite direction in a given period.

The first long wave of democratizationdates from 1828–192 6 years, i.e. roughly coincides with the era of the Concert of Europe. Of course, democracy of the 19th century. are very different from modern ones, so researchers consider it a sufficient criterion for democracy that 50% of the adult male population have the right to vote, and the responsible head of the executive branch either retains the support of the majority in the elected parliament or is elected during periodic popular elections. The first wave of democratization begins with USA, by the end of the 19th century. the specified criteria are achieved Switzerland, France, Great Britain, overseas British dominions, at the beginning of the 20th century — Italy and Argentina. The phenomenon of emerging democracy was described by the French thinker in his study “Democracy in America” (1835-1840). Alexis de Tocqueville(1805-1859), where he also pointed out the problems generated by the new form of organization of society: the centralization of power and the dependence of the individual on the bureaucracy.

Confrontation between monarchies and republics also occurred at the level of ideologies . In the era of bourgeois revolutions and the emergence of nation-states secular ideologies emerge — liberalism, conservatism and socialism. The textbook “The World of Political Science,” edited by A. Yu. Melville, gives the following definition:ideology — a relatively systematized set of interrelated ideas, ideas, concepts and doctrines both about the structure and functioning of society, and about ways to achieve a state of society that meets the interests of the bearer of these ideas , which creates the basis for an organized political activity, regardless of whether the goal of ideology is the preservation, transformation or destruction of political reality.

In early Marxism, ideology was considered “false consciousness” because it always represents reality in a distorted way; ideologists present an imaginary image of reality as reality itself. In more neutral definitionsideology — it is a belief system that explains and justifies a given society's preferred political order .

The foundation of classical liberalism is laid by the works John Locke and the Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith (1723–1790). Liberal ideology develops during the period of bourgeois revolutions and includes such components as individualism, the ideal of individual freedom in all spheres of public life - but freedom limited by legal and political equality (“equality of opportunity”), tolerance, pluralism, faith in progress, participation in politics through various forms of representation.

As a reaction to bourgeois revolutions and liberalism, the ideology of conservatism emerges, which calls for reliance on traditions rather than abstract ideals. Ideologists of conservatism are confident in the innate inequality of people, the imperfection of human nature, believing that the best form of organizing social life is hierarchy.

Another opponent of liberalism is socialism, which took shape as a political ideology in the 19th century. Instead of the principle of individualism, socialism proposes reliance on society, egalitarianism (“equality of results”), a class approach, and the ideal of public ownership instead of private ownership. The radical direction of socialism is the ideology of Marxism.

The ideology of Marxism should not be confused with Marxism as a theory. The German sociologist, philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818-1883) created together with Friedrich Engels(1820-1895) philosophical theory historical materialism, according to which “it is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.” The material basis that has a decisive influence on all aspects of social life , Marx thought mode of production , which represents unity of productive forces(who produces material goods) and industrial relations(relations between those who produce and who consume goods). Marx highlighted five historical production methods(formations) — primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist. Among the shortcomings of Marxism, its Euro-centrism is often cited - the scientist failed to explain the “Asian” mode of production, which did not fit into his scientific constructs.

The main subjects in Marx's theory are not states or societies, but social classes- for example, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and they “have no fatherland”, i.e. These are international communities with shared interests, regardless of their country of residence. Exactly therefore, Marx viewed states in the international arena as secondary actors , and themselves international relations - only as a superstructure over the economic basis, which determines all relationships . The essence of both domestic and international relations lies in the struggle of the exploited proletariat against the imperialist bourgeoisie. Marx's theories were developed by V. I. Lenin (1870-1924), who considered the causes of wars and revolutions to be the harsh political confrontation between the imperialist colonial powers and the economic struggle between monopolies .

And although Marxism as a theory of international relations has never been popular, Marxism as a political ideology led to significant changes in international relations of the 20th century, laying the foundations for the largest social experiment in the history of mankind to build socialism.

2. Interwar system of international O relations: the formation of “classical” theories

Relatively stable the multipolar system of the “European Concert” ceases to exist with the beginningFirst World War (1914-1918). Local war in the Balkans in 1914 quickly developed into a global one due to the system of military alliances (the Entente, the Triple Alliance, and then the Quadruple Alliance), which ensured an almost automatic expansion of the conflict. Political alliances, in fact, devalued the emerging economic interdependence, which could have prevented an armed conflict. The First World War differed from the wars of previous centuries primarily in its geographical scope . Since colonial powers took part in the war, fighting were carried out not only in Europe, but also in Africa and the Middle East. One of the main geopolitical consequences of the war was the collapse of four empires — Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German, and also Russian, instead of which the Soviet Union subsequently arises.

In 1919a decision is made to create the League of Nations - first world political organization (except for the USA and Saudi Arabia, at one time or another, the League of Nations included all the then existing states of the world), whose goals were preventing conflicts and maintaining peace through the creation of a system of collective security . After the First World War, such a theoretical direction as liberalism (idealism), who tried to answer the question of the causes of war and peace and understand how to avoid a repetition of such a tragedy. The creator of the League of Nations became the spokesman for the ideas of liberalism American President USAWoodrow Wilson.

“Fourteen points” from the President’s message USA V Udro V Wilson to Congress on January 8, 1918.

(extraction)

Our program is a program of universal peace. This program, the only possible program, is the following:

1. Open peace treaties, openly discussed, after which there will be no secret international agreements of any kind, and diplomacy will always operate openly and in full view of everyone.<...>

The removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equal conditions for trade of all nations who stand for peace and unite their efforts to maintain it.
Fair guarantees that national armaments will be reduced to the bare minimum consistent with national security.
A free, frank and absolutely impartial settlement of all colonial disputes, based on strict adherence to the principle that in the determination of all questions relating to sovereignty, the interests of the people should weigh equally against the just claims of the government whose rights are to be determined.

<...>

14. A general association of nations should be formed on the basis of special statutes for the purpose of creating a mutual guarantee of the political independence and territorial integrity of both large and small states.

Interwar researchers (Pitman B. Potter, Al-Fred E. Zimmern, David Mitrany) were mainly concerned with describing the activities of the League of Nations and its potential for ensuring international security, as well as problems of collective governance and economic interdependence between states , laying the foundations for such areas as the study of international organizations and integration.

The theoretical basis for interwar studies was primarily federalism, which later inspired the “fathers” of European integration. Representing rather political program than theory federalism saw the ultimate goal of integration as the creation of a new unified federal state or supranational structures from once sovereign states . IN 1943 d. the work of David Mitrany appeared, in which the foundations of a competing theory were laid - functionalism.

According to the Federalists to create a new political community it is necessary to replace national governments with supranational institutions. According to functionalists, international organizations should be created to satisfy basic functional needs - the development of trade, transport networks, production and so on. Economy functionalists considered more important than politics , A the institutional form had to be determined by the functional content .

Federalists stood in opposite positions : form(federal super-state) more important than content , policy more important than the economy . At the same time there were these approaches and common features : their goal was to ensure peace , and the very existence of a national state was presented rather as an obstacle on this path ; the nation-state and connection to territory were perceived as a relic of the Westphalian world system, the very structure of which provoked wars and conflicts.

A significant factor in the interwar period was global economic crisis, which begins with the crash of the New York Stock Exchange in October 1929 This crisis, which is called Great Depression, led to an unprecedented economic recession in developed Western countries, throwing industrial production back to the level of the beginning of the 20th century. Most countries emerged from the crisis only by 1933. The Soviet Union, which by that time had closed itself off from outside world, did not suffer from the economic crisis, but the famine of 1932-1933. was a consequence of internal reasons - the processes of collectivization and industrialization.

While there is no consensus among economists about the causes of the Great Depression, the consequences can be identified quite clearly. The first significant consequence of the recession- This breakdown of market mechanisms, collapse of the gold standard system, which was restored after the First World War only by 1925. States responded to the economic downturn by introducing protectionist measures, which led to a decrease in international trade volumes .

Existing economic theories could not offer a way out of the crisis. In 1936, the British economist John Maynard Keynes publishes work " General theory of employment, interest and money", which had a huge impact on the development of economic thought, in particular laid the foundation for such a direction as macroeconomics . According to Keynes, The Great Depression showed , What self-regulation of the market does not allow us to get out of the crisis; accordingly, the state must assume responsibilities for regulating the economy. The state must ensure full employment of the population through payments paid from the budget. public works or government orders. Reduced unemployment and rising incomes, as well as the provision of cheap government loans will lead to increased demand and revitalization of the economy .

Keynes's ideas were actively used by states both to overcome the Great Depression and to overcome the economic consequences of World War II. In the 1970s there was a departure from the ideals of state regulation of economic processes , however financial crisis of the late 2000s made Keynesianism relevant again .

Sharp rise in unemployment and impoverishment of the population during the Great Depression led to the emergence of radical sentiments in society and the growing popularity of communist and Nazi ideologies : For example, in 1933 in the elections in Germany , where the increase in unemployment was the most significant among Western countries, The National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, wins.

In general, after the First World War, according to S. Huntington’s periodization, there is the first “rollback” in the spread of democracy(1922–1942), when some of the newly democratized states returned to undemocratic rule. The beginning of the first “rollback” is considered to be Mussolini's rise to power in Italy in 1922 In many states The military comes to power through coups and then establishes a dictatorship : this scenario was implemented in Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Greece , pro-fascist regimes are established in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. At first 1930s V Japan the military attempted coups, which, although unsuccessful, allowed the military to gain significant influence on government decision-making. The change of regimes was accompanied by the rise of fascism, Nazism and other militaristic ideologies .

After graduationFirst World Warwars several states still become democratic - those who gained independence Ireland and Iceland, in the early 1930s - Spain and Chile. However, there were more countries that made a turn towards authoritarianism in the interwar period; these were mainly countries where democracy was established relatively recently and did not have time to consolidate, i.e. strengthen.

Although the First World War directly or indirectly led to significant changes in many areas, European political thinking has failed to adapt to new realities : the processes of growing interdependence between regional subsystems were not reflected in the Eurocentric structure of the multipolar balance of power created after 1919, which tried to recreate the stability of the “Concert of Europe”. Failure to participate in and expulsion from the United States League of Nations Soviet Union could not but reduce the effectiveness of this organization. Exit future aggressors ( Japan, Germany, Italy) from the League of Nations turned her from world organization collective security in the likeness of military-political alliances of previous eras, but with less strict obligations.

Due to the fact that the League of Nations, as a system of collective security, could not prevent the unleashing of Second World War(1939—1945), the dominant approach to the analysis of international relations in the interwar period was later called “ idealism ». The term was coined in 1939 British historian Edward X. Kapp,who was a representative of the theoretically opposite approach. This approach was calledreal-mom. Realists, of course, slightly simplifying the approaches of his opponents, criticized idealists for their utopian approach to international relations , the desire to establish, thanks to the activities of the League of Nations, almost eternal peace between states. These theoretical discussions were called the “first great controversy”, which was far from the last in the development of international relations as a scientific discipline.

After many regional and two world wars realists did not believe in the desire of states to resolve disputes by peaceful means, nor in the ability of international organizations such as the League of Nations to help maintain peace . Realists perceived the entire history of mankind as a series of wars, followed only by brief respites to prepare for the next conflicts. If the prerequisites for conflicts are different each time , That causes always the same , realists believe, because human nature is unchangeable and it is she who determines the laws by which society and the state live . Therefore, philosophical and political theories Ancient Greece or Ancient Chinaare still relevant. To prove this, realists began to look for the intellectual foundations of their approach in the history of political thought from Antiquity to the Renaissance and Enlightenment. , in the so-called "classical tradition".

The first representative of the "classical tradition" realists considered to have lived in the 5th century. BC. ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who in his Stories of the Peloponnesian War", analyzing the causes of wars, noted that human nature inevitably leads to violence, and law operates only when the opponents’ forces are equal, as a result, the main argument in any conflict is the force that is needed to defend the interests of the state and ensure its security .

One of the founders of the realist theoretical movement is the German-American researcher of international relations Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980), who in 1948 published a classic work " Political relations between nations: the struggle for power and peace", Where outlines six basic principles of political realism .

Politics and society as a whole are subordinated objective laws, which are due to the unchanging nature of man.
The key concept of realism is interest, defined in terms of power . International politics is a struggle for power. Political realism assumes that foreign policy should be rational from the point of view of moral principles and practical goals. At the same time, realists recognize that irrationality and chance can also influence foreign policy.
The state must always defend its national interests . Interest as a desire for power is an objective category, unchanged in all eras. However, the political and cultural environment can influence the specific content of this concept: power as the control of one person over another has different embodiments in different eras.
Individuals and states have different approaches to morality : an individual can sacrifice himself to universal moral principles; the state does not have such a right, because it is responsible for the survival of the nation.
If we assume that all states pursue national interests defined in terms of power, then it turns out that we need to judge all states equally, without elevating the moral principles of one state above the principles of others. This approach makes it possible to pursue a policy that protects the interests of one’s own state, while respecting the interests of other states.
The political sphere needs to be analyzed separately from economics, law, morality , because when studying each of these aspects, a different approach is required: for example, for an economist, interest is defined in terms of wealth, for a lawyer, interest is the compliance of actions with the rules of law.

Generally supporters of realism consider only sovereign states as the main participant in international relations , whose behavior on the international stage can be depicted as a collision of billiard balls. States are analyzed as unitary (whole) actors , i.e. the state is perceived as a homogeneous organism, and not a set of institutions.

Only great powers can have a significant influence on international relations; the rest are forced to adapt to their policies . In the absence of a supranational sovereignty, international relations are anarchic, resulting in a "help yourself" mentality for states. The goal of any state is to ensure its security, including at the expense of the security of other states . Since the interest of any state is to acquire power, the interests of players in the international arena come into conflict, which can only be resolved by force. Realist approach quite accurately reflected the behavior of the great powers after the Second World War, so it was he became the dominant paradigm in international relations until the end of the Cold War.

Literature

Nikitina Yu.A. International relations and world politics: Introduction to the specialty: Proc. manual for university students. - 3rd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing house "Aspect Press", 2014. - P.60-74.

In October 1813, the forces of the new anti-French coalition (Russia, Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, Spain and Portugal) defeated the French army in the Battle of the Nations near Leipzig. In March 1814, coalition troops entered Paris.

Louis XVIII, the brother of the executed king, was elevated to the French throne. Napoleon retained the title of emperor, but was forced to sign an act of abdication and go into exile on the island of Elba (see lesson). The Congress of Vienna was convened to discuss and create a new post-war system in Europe.

Events

May 1814. - a peace treaty with France was signed by Russia, England, Spain, Prussia, and Portugal. Under this treaty, France lost all the territories conquered during the revolutionary wars.

September 1814 - June 1815. - Congress of Vienna. The first diplomatic congress in world history met in Vienna. Almost all European states took part in it. Representatives of five powers had the greatest influence at the congress: Russia, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and France.

Objectives of the Congress:

1) return the pre-revolutionary borders of France, restore the Bourbon dynasty in France;

2) carry out the territorial reorganization of Europe and the colonies;

3) take measures to prevent new revolutions and conflicts in Europe.

Results of the Vienna Congress:

Most of the Duchy of Warsaw went to Russia.
Prussia received the Rhineland, Westphalia, and western Polish lands.
Austria received Lombardy and Venice.
Great Britain received the island of Malta, the island of Ceylon, and the Cape Land in southern Africa.
The German Confederation was created from 39 states (among others it included Austria and Prussia).
The temporal power of the pope over the Roman region was restored.
At the congress, a whole system of alliances and agreements was adopted that were designed to restrain the aggression of individual states. This is how a legal (legitimate) order emerged, based on a system of generally recognized international treaties.

1815. - The Holy Alliance was concluded between Russia, Austria and Prussia. Later, this treaty was signed by almost all rulers of European states.

The treaty was intended to guarantee respect for the European borders adopted at the Congress of Vienna. The union was aimed at preventing wars and revolutions in Europe, as well as protecting monarchical and religious values.

Participants

Clemens Metternich - Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria, Chancellor from 1821 to 1848. He was chairman at the Congress of Vienna.

Alexander I- Russian emperor.

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord - French political and statesman. He headed the French delegation at the Congress of Vienna.

Louis XVIII- French king of the Bourbon dynasty.

Alphonse de Lamartine- French politician, poet, historian.

Conclusion

The Congress laid the foundations of the Vienna System of International Relations. One of its features is the desire for a peaceful settlement international problems. The Vienna system began to collapse in mid-19th V.

Among the reasons for the collapse of the Vienna system:

The rise of national movements. The desire to revise borders in accordance with the rights and interests of nations. The emergence of supporters of an independent foreign policy that would defend national interests.
The aggravation of the Eastern Question and the beginning of the Crimean War (see lesson). The three great powers (Russia, France, Great Britain), whose cooperation within the Vienna System ensured peace, began to fight against each other.
Revolutions in Europe 1848-1849 In the manifesto of A. de Lamartine, the treaties of 1815 were declared to have lost legal force.